Search

Background: Cannabis use is increasing among middle-aged and older US adults, populations that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of cannabis. Risks for adverse effects differ by cannabis use patterns, which have become increasingly heterogeneous. Nevertheless, little is known about age differences in such patterns. Objective: To investigate age differences in cannabis use patterns, comparing younger (age 18–49), middle-aged (age 50–64), and older adults (age ≥65). Methods: A total of 4,151 US adults with past 7-day cannabis consumption completed an online survey (35.1% male; 60.1% female; 4.8% identified as "other"). Regression models examined age differences in cannabis use patterns. Results: Compared to younger adults, middle-aged and older adults were more likely to consume cannabis during evening hours (50–64: adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.98, 95% CI 2.24–3.96; ≥65: aOR = 4.23, 95 CI 2.82–6.35); by only one method (50–64: aOR = 1.67, 95% CI 1.34–2.09; ≥65: aOR = 3.38, 95 CI 2.24–5.09); primarily by smoking as the only method (50–64: aOR = 1.52, 95% CI 1.29–1.78; ≥65: aOR = 2.12, 95 CI 1.64–2.74); but less likely to consume concentrated cannabis products (concentrates) with extremely high %THC (50–64: aOR = 0.71, 95% CI 0.54–0.93; ≥65: aOR = 0.30, 95 CI 0.16–0.55). Age differences in cannabis use patterns were also observed between middle-aged and older adults. Conclusion: Findings suggest that middle-aged and older adults may engage in less risky cannabis use patterns compared to younger groups (e.g. lower likelihood of consuming highly potent concentrates). However, findings also underscore the importance of recognizing risks unique to these older demographics, such as smoking-related health events. Consequently, prevention strategies targeting such use patterns are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims: Hallucinogen use is potentially harmful. Information on whether such use has increased in recent decades is lacking. This study assessed overall and age‐specific time trends in the prevalence of 12‐month hallucinogen use in the US general population. Design: Cross‐sectional. Setting: Data from the US National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2002–19. Participants: Respondents aged ≥ 12 years (n = 1 006 051). Measurements Predictors were continuous years. Outcome variables included any hallucinogen use and use of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), ecstasy and phencyclidine (PCP) in the past year. Socio‐demographic variables (gender, age, race/ethnicity, educational level and family income) were covariates. Findings Overall, hallucinogen use increased between 2015 and 2019 [prevalence difference (PD) = +0.44, P < 0.05]. Since 2002, hallucinogen use has increased in adults aged ≥ 26 years (PD, 2002–14 = +0.24, P < 0.05; PD, 2015–19 = +0.45, P < 0.001) and decreased in adolescents aged 12–17 years (PD, 2002–14 = −1.60, P < 0.0001; PD, 2015–19 = −0.73, P < 0.001). Ecstasy use has decreased in adolescents (PD, 2002–14 = −0.56, P < 0.001), adults aged 18–25 years (PD, 2015–19 = −0.96, P < 0.01) and ≥ 26 years (PD, 2015–19 = −0.13, P < 0.05). LSD use between 2002 and 2019 increased overall (PD = +0.71, P < 0.0001) and in all age groups (12–17: PD = +0.67, P < 0.001; 18–25: PD = +3.12, P < 0.0001; ≥ 26: PD = +0.36, P < 0.0001). Conversely, PCP use between 2002 and 2019 decreased overall (PD = –0.06, P < 0.001), in adolescents (PD = –0.24, P < 0.001) and young adults (PD = –0.32, P < 0.0001). Conclusions: Since 2002, hallucinogen use in the United States has decreased among adolescents but increased in adults and is now estimated to affect more than 3 million adults aged 26+ years and more than 5.5 million adults aged 18+ years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The authors sought to determine the association of cannabis indicators with self-reported psychotic disorders in the U.S. general population.Methods: Participants were from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC; 2001-2002; N=43,093) and NESARC-III (2012-2013; N=36,309). Logistic regression was used to estimate standardized prevalences of past-year self-reported psychotic disorders within each survey and to evaluate the association of past-year self-reported psychotic disorders with indicators of nonmedical cannabis use (any use; frequent use [at least three times/week], daily/near-daily use, and DSM-IV cannabis use disorder) compared with those with no past-year nonmedical cannabis use. Whether the strength of associations differed between surveys was indicated by difference-in-difference tests (between-survey contrasts) and ratios of odds ratios between surveys.Results: Self-reported psychotic disorders were significantly more prevalent among participants with any nonmedical cannabis use than those without (2001-2002: 1.65% compared with 0.27%; 2012-2013: 1.89% compared with 0.68%). In 2001-2002, self-reported psychotic disorders were unrelated to either frequent use or daily/near-daily use. However, in 2012 - 2013, compared with nonusers, self-reported psychotic disorders were more common among participants with frequent use and those with daily/near-daily nonmedical cannabis use (2012-2013: 2.79% and 2.52%, respectively, compared with 0.68% among nonusers). Self-reported psychotic disorders were significantly more prevalent among participants with cannabis use disorder than nonusers in both surveys (2001-2002: 2.55% compared with 0.27%; 2012 - 2013: 3.38% compared with 0.68%). The strength of these associations did not change over time.Conclusions: Data from the U.S. general population, especially more recent data, suggest associations between self-reported psychotic disorder and frequent nonmedical cannabis use and cannabis use disorder. Clinicians and policy makers should consider these relationships when monitoring patients and formulating programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The DSM‐5 definition of alcohol use disorder (AUD) has been well validated, but information is lacking on the extent to which alcohol use, comorbidity, and impairment are associated with the 3 DSM‐5‐defined AUD severity levels: mild, moderate, and severe. This study examined clinical and functional characteristics as predictors (validators) of these severity levels. Methods: Participants aged ≥18 years reporting current problem substance use (N = 588) were recruited between 2016 and 2019 and assessed for DSM‐5 AUD and a set of potential validators: indicators of alcohol use severity (i.e., craving, binge drinking frequency, problematic use, and harmful drinking), psychiatric disorders, and functional impairment. Multinomial logistic regression models examined the association between the predictors and the 3 AUD severity levels (mild, moderate, and severe) vs the reference group, no AUD, controlling for sociodemographic characteristics and other substance use. Results: All alcohol use validators were associated with a greater likelihood of all 3 AUD severity levels compared with the no‐AUD group. However, psychiatric disorders were associated only with severe AUD and participants with major depression (aOR = 2.44), posttraumatic stress disorder (aOR = 1.65), borderline personality disorder (aOR = 1.99), and antisocial personality disorder (aOR = 1.78) had a greater likelihood of severe AUD than the no‐AUD group. Functioning validators were also associated only with severe AUD and participants with social (aOR = 1.87), physical (aOR = 1.62), or mental (aOR = 1.84) impairment had a greater likelihood of severe AUD than the no‐AUD group. Many alcohol‐related, psychiatric, and functioning validators were associated with greater odds of severe AUD than mild or moderate AUD. Conclusion: This study supports the criterion validity of the DSM‐5 tri‐categorical measure of AUD. Specifically, results fully supported the validity of severe AUD by its associations with all predictors, whereas the validity of mild and moderate AUD was supported only by alcohol use predictor variables. Findings suggest the value of using severity‐specific interventions utilizing the DSM‐5 AUD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Use of novel cannabis products whose primary active compound is Delta-8 tetrahydrocannabinol (Delta-8 THC), an isomer of Delta-9 THC has recently surged. While Delta-8 THC has psychoactive effects and is potentially harmful, little is known about its use. We examined sociodemographic characteristics, motivations, and consumption patterns of Delta-8 THC in US adult cannabis users.Methods: Cannabis-using adult online survey participants (N = 4,348) provided information on Delta-8 use, and other characteristics. We assessed frequencies of sociodemographics, patterns, and correlates of Delta-8 THC use. Regression models estimated adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of associations between past 30-day Delta-8 THC use, sociodemographic and other characteristics.Findings: Among past 30-day cannabis users, 16.7% reported Delta-8 THC use. The most common consumption method was vaping concentrated formulations of Delta-8 THC (41.2%). Primary motivations for use were its legal status and perceived therapeutic benefits. Males were more likely than females to report Delta-8 THC use (aOR = 1.4, 95% CI 1.2, 1.7). Respondents residing in states with restrictions on sales of Delta-8 THC products had lower odds of Delta-8 THC use (aOR = 0.7, 95% CI 0.57, 0.86).Conclusions: Findings provide initial insight into the current state of Delta-8 THC use in the US. Given the limited knowledge on use of Delta-8 THC, and considering emergence of reports indicating its harmful effects, there is urgent need for nationally representative data to investigate correlates of Delta-8 THC use (e.g., effectiveness of state-specific restrictions on its products). Such information can guide public-health policy around Delta-8 THC use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In DSM-5, definitions of substance use disorders (SUD) were changed considerably from DSM-IV, yet little is known about how well DSM-IV and DSM-5 SUD diagnoses agree among substance users. Because data from many studies are based on DSM-IV diagnostic criteria, understanding the agreement between DSM-5 and DSM-IV SUD diagnoses and reasons for discordance between these diagnoses is crucial for comparing results across studies.Measurements: Prevalences and chance-corrected agreement of DSM-5 SUD and DSM-IV substance dependence were evaluated in 588 substance users in a suburban inpatient addiction program and an urban medical center, using a semi-structured interview (PRISM-5). Alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, cocaine, heroin, opioid, sedative, and stimulant use disorders were examined. Cohen's kappa was used to assess agreement between DSM-5 and DSM-IV SUD (abuse or dependence), DSM-5 SUD and DSM-IV dependence, and DSM-5 moderate/severe SUD and DSM-IV dependence.Results: Agreement between DSM-5 and DSM-IV SUD was excellent for all substances (κ = 0.84-0.99), except for cannabis and tobacco (κ = 0.75; 0.80, respectively). The most common reason for diagnostic discrepancies was a positive DSM-5 SUD diagnosis but no DSM-IV diagnosis, due to the lowered DSM-5 SUD threshold. Agreement between DSM-5 SUD and DSM-IV dependence was excellent for all substances (κ = 0.88-0.94), except for alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis (κ = 0.63-0.75). Agreement between moderate/severe DSM-5 SUD and DSM-IV dependence was excellent across all substances.Conclusion: While care should be used in interpreting results of studies using different methods, studies relying on DSM-IV or DSM-5 SUD diagnostic criteria offer similar information and thus can be compared when accumulating a body of evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In recent decades, the US religious landscape has undergone considerable change such as a decline in religious service attendance. These changes may indicate that religious social support structures have deteriorated, possibly leading to a decrease in strengths of associations with substance use. Considering this, and given limitations of past studies (e.g., limited control for potential confounders), large-scale general population studies are needed to reexamine associations between religiosity domains and substance use.Methods: This cross-sectional study used data from the 2012-2013 National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions-III (N = 36,309). In unadjusted and adjusted models, controlling for religiosity domains and other covariates, we examined associations between three religiosity domains (importance of religiosity/spirituality, service attendance, and religious affiliation) and DSM-5 SUD. Focusing on service attendance, we also examined associations with other substance use-related outcomes.Results: Among religiosity domains, only frequency of service attendance was associated with SUD across most substances. Frequent service attendees had lower odds of alcohol use disorder (adjusted OR [aOR] = 0.4, 95 % CI 0.33,0.51), tobacco use disorder (aOR = 0.3, 95 % CI 0.22,0.33) and cannabis use disorder (aOR = 0.4, 95 % CI 0.24,0.68), compared to non-service attendees. For alcohol and tobacco, the protective effect of frequent service attendance was more robust for SUD than for respective substance use.Conclusions: Despite decreasing rates of religious belief and practice in the US, service attendance independently lowered the odds of substance use and SUD across multiple substances. Results may inform religious leaders and clinicians about the value of utilizing religious social support structures in the prevention and treatment of substance use and SUD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Sexual and gender minority (LGBT+) disparities in cannabis use and problems exist. • Few studies have examined differences in cannabis problems across the lifespan. • LGBT+ identity associated with CUD and endorsement of CUD Criteria 1 and 9. • No age*identity interactions emerged in adjusted models. • Employment, college attainment, and medical use protected from problems. LGBT+ adults demonstrate greater cannabis-related problems (e.g., Cannabis Use Disorder [CUD]) compared to non-LGBT+ counterparts. No study has explored age-related disparities in cannabis problems across the adult lifespan, nor have studies identified specific CUD criteria that contribute to elevated CUD among LGBT+ adults. The purpose of this study was to examine associations between LGBT+ identity and age with endorsement of CUD criteria in a sample of regular cannabis consumers. An online sample of N = 4334 (25.1% LGBT+) adults aged 18–64 residing in the U.S. completed an online survey about cannabis use behaviors and CUD diagnostic criteria. Bivariate contrasts revealed significantly greater CUD criteria endorsement among LGBT+ respondents, largely driven by differences at younger ages. However, this effect disappeared in the majority of adjusted logistic regression models. LGBT+ identity was associated with greater probability of use in larger amounts (adjOR = 2.10, 95% CI : 1.22–3.60) and use despite physical/mental health problems (adjOR = 2.51, 95% CI :1.23–5.03). No age*LGBT+ identity interactions were detected. Plotted trends depict more pronounced disparities in outcomes among LGBT+ adults under 35 years. Several potential risk and protective factors including employment, education, and reasons for use were identified. There were age-related differences in these characteristics among LGBT+ and non-LGBT+ respondents. Initial findings highlight the need for LGBT+ research examining trends in health outcomes and sociodemographic and cannabis characteristics across the lifespan. The study also provides a substantive contribution regarding specific cannabis-related problems that young LGBT+ cannabis consumers may be more likely to endorse than their non-LGBT+ counterparts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Decreases in binge drinking in youth <21 after Recreational Cannabis Laws (RCLs). • Increases in binge drinking in adults 31+ were noted after RCLs. • There was no association between binge drinking and RCLs in adults aged 21-30 years. • Findings support complementary hypotheses in adults after RCLs. Recreational cannabis laws (RCLs) may have spillover effects on binge drinking. Our aims were to investigate binge drinking time trends and the association between RCLs and changes in binge drinking in the United States (U.S.). We used restricted National Survey on Drug Use and Health data (2008-2019). We examined trends in the prevalence of past-month binge drinking by age groups (12-20, 21-30, 31-40, 41-50, 51+). Then, we compared model-based prevalences of past-month binge drinking before and after RCL by age group, using multi-level logistic regression with state random intercepts, an RCL by age group interaction term, and controlling for state alcohol policies. Binge drinking declined overall from 2008 to 2019 among people aged 12-20 (17.54% to 11.08%), and those aged 21-30 (43.66% to 40.22%). However, binge drinking increased among people aged 31+ (ages 31-40: 28.11% to 33.34%, ages 41-50: 25.48% to 28.32%, ages 51+: 13.28% to 16.75%). When investigating model-based prevalences after versus before RCL, binge drinking decreased among people aged 12-20 (prevalence difference=-4.8%; adjusted odds ratio (aOR)=0.77, [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70-0.85]), and increased among participants aged 31-40 (+1.7%; 1.09[1.01-1.26]), 41-50 (+2.5; 1.15[1.05-1.26]) and 51+ (+1.8%; 1.17[1.06-1.30]). No RCL-related changes were noted in respondents ages 21-30. Implementation of RCLs was associated with increased past-month binge drinking in adults aged 31+ and decreased past-month binge drinking in those aged < 21. As the cannabis legislative landscape continues to change in the U.S., efforts to minimize harms related to binge drinking are critical. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• In a 2021 survey of 4,328 adult past-7-day cannabis users, 57.0% used concentrates. • Concentrate use was higher in states with medical or recreational marijuana laws. • Determining mechanisms of the differences by state law is important for prevention. Compared to plant/flower cannabis products, cannabis concentrates have higher average potency of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ9-THC), which may be associated with greater likelihood of cannabis-related harms. Information on factors associated with use of cannabis concentrates is needed. Respondents were 4,328 adult past-7-day cannabis users from all 50 U.S. states and Washington DC (DC) who participated in an online 2021 survey. Using logistic regression to generate adjusted odds ratios (aOR), we investigated whether participants in states that enacted recreational cannabis laws (RCL, 12 states plus DC [treated as a state], n = 1,236) or medical cannabis laws (MCL-only, 23 states, n = 2,030) by December 31, 2020 were more likely than those in states without cannabis laws (no-CL, 15 states, n = 1,062) to use cannabis concentrate products in the prior 7 days. Most participants (92.4%) used plant material in the prior 7 days; 57.0% used cannabis concentrates. In RCL, MCL and no-CL states, concentrate use was reported by 61.5%, 56.6%, and 52.5%, respectively. Compared to participants in no-CL states, odds of using cannabis concentrate products were greater among those in RCL states (aOR = 1.47; CI = 1.17–1.84) and MCL-only states (aOR = 1.29; CI = 1.08–1.55). Whether states had legally-authorized dispensaries had little effect on results. Results suggest that individuals in MCL-only and RCL states are more likely to use cannabis concentrate products. Determining mechanisms underlying these results, e.g., commercialization, could provide important information for prevention. Clinicians should be alert to patient use of concentrates, especially in MCL-only and RCL states. Continued monitoring is warranted as additional states legalize cannabis use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Highly-potent cannabis products, e.g., concentrates, entail greater risks of cannabis-related harms than lower-potency products such as plant or flower material. However, little information is available on whether individuals in U.S. states with recreational cannabis laws (RCL) or medical cannabis laws (MCL) are more likely than individuals in U.S. states without cannabis legalization (no-CL) to use highly-potent forms of cannabis.Methods: Cannabis-using adults in a 2017 online survey (N = 4064) provided information on state of residence and past-month cannabis use, including types of products used, categorized as low-potency (smoked or vaped plant cannabis) or high-potency (vaping or dabbing concentrates). Multivariable logistic regression models generated adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for use of high-potency cannabis products by state cannabis legalization status (RCL, MCL, no-CL).Results: Compared to participants in no-CL states, participants in RCL states had greater odds of using high-potency concentrate products (aOR=2.61;CI=1.77-3.86), as did participants in MCL-only states (aOR=1.55;CI=1.21-1.97). When participants in RCL states and MCL states were directly compared, those in RCL states had greater odds of using high-potency concentrate products (aOR=1.69;CI=1.27-2.42).Discussion: Although the sample was not nationally representative and the cross-sectional data precluded determining the direction of effect, results suggest that use of high-potency cannabis concentrates is more likely among those in RCL states. Clinicians in RCL states should screen cannabis users for harmful patterns of use. Policymakers in states that do not yet have RCL should consider these findings when drafting new cannabis laws, including the specific products permitted and how best to regulate them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]