Search

ObjectiveIn the United States, adult cannabis use has increased over time, but less information is available on time trends in cannabis use disorder. The authors used Veterans Health Administration (VHA) data to examine change over time in cannabis use disorder diagnoses among veterans, an important population subgroup, and whether such trends differ by age group (

Introduction and Aims: It has been previously reported that more than 34% of individuals who use cannabis may qualify for a diagnosis of DSM-IV cannabis abuse or dependence throughout their lifetime. The introduction of the DSM-5 cannabis use disorder (CUD) diagnostic criteria reflects several intrinsic changes in the perception of substance use disorders. However, little is known about the probability of transition from cannabis use to CUD over time nor about the sociodemographic and clinical correlates associated with this transition.Design and Methods: Participants were individuals ≥18 years interviewed in the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions-III in 2012-2013. Measurements included univariable and multivariable discrete-time survival analyses performed to examine the association between previously reported cannabis dependence predictors and the hazards of transitioning from cannabis use to CUD. Survival plots assessed the probability of transition from cannabis use to CUD over time since age of first use and differences in probability between predictor levels.Results: Among lifetime cannabis users (N = 11 272), lifetime probability of transition to CUD was approximately 27%. A higher probability of transition from cannabis use to CUD was observed in the following: men, participants belonging to an ethnic minority group, early-onset cannabis users and individuals who reported experiencing three or more childhood adverse events.Discussion and Conclusions: This is the first study to explore transition from cannabis use to the DSM-5 CUD diagnosis. The current study identified specific predictors of this transition, which may assist in targeting at-risk populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Though high rates of co-occurring cannabis use and depression are well-documented, data regarding the association between cannabis use and dysthymia is scarce. The aim of this cross-sectional study was to explore clinical correlations of cannabis use among individuals with dysthymia, as well as the changes in the association between cannabis use and dysthymia across six decades of birth cohorts.Methods: Data were drawn from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions-III (NESARC-III; 2012-2013; N = 36,309). Participants were divided into six birth cohorts (1940s-1990s), based on their decade of birth, and individuals with dysthymia were further categorized by 3 levels of lifetime cannabis use: non-users, non-CUD users, and CUD-users. We compared rates of co-occurring psychiatric and substance use disorders among cannabis users vs non-users and conducted logistic regression analyses in order to determine the odds of dysthymia among cannabis users across six decades.Results: Rates of several psychiatric disorders, such as personality disorders, and substance use disorders were higher among individuals with dysthymia who used cannabis compared to those who did not. The interaction between cannabis use (without a CUD) and birth cohort was associated with a decrease in the odds of dysthymia (OR=0.90, 95% CI 0.84-0.97) and remained significant after controlling for confounding variables. Similar changes over time were not demonstrated for CUD users.Limitations: Likelihood for recall bias and misclassification based on cross-sectional nature of the study and on respondents' self-reports of symptoms throughout their lifetime.Conclusions and Implications: Our study's findings demonstrate that the association between cannabis use (but not CUDs) and dysthymia has weakened over time. These findings highlight the need for further research examining changes over time in the relationship between cannabis use and associated psychiatric disorders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The DSM-5 criteria for cannabis use disorder (CUD) combine DSM-IV dependence and abuse criteria (without legal problems) and new withdrawal and craving criteria. Information on dimensionality, internal reliability, and differential functioning of the DSM-5 CUD criteria is lacking. Additionally, dimensionality of the DSM-5 withdrawal items is unknown. This study examined the psychometric properties of the DSM-5 CUD criteria among adults who used cannabis in the past 7 days (N = 5,119). Adults with frequent cannabis use were recruited from the US general population through social media and filled in a web-based survey about demographics and cannabis use behaviors. Factor analysis was used to assess dimensionality, and item response theory analysis models were used to explore relationships between the criteria and the underlying latent trait (CUD), and whether each criterion and the criteria set functioned differently by demographic and clinical characteristics: sex, age, state-level cannabis laws, reasons for cannabis use, and frequency of use. The DSM-5 CUD criteria showed unidimensionality and provided information about the CUD latent trait across the severity spectrum. The cannabis withdrawal items indicated one underlying latent factor. While some CUD criteria functioned differently in specific subgroups, the criteria set as a whole functioned similarly across subgroups. In this online sample of adults with frequent cannabis use, evidence supports the reliability, validity, and utility of the DSM-5 CUD diagnostic criteria set, which can be used for determining a major risk of cannabis use, i.e., CUD, to inform cannabis policies and public health messaging, and for developing intervention strategies. • Adults with frequent cannabis use completed an online survey of cannabis behaviors. • DSM-5 cannabis use disorder (CUD) criteria were unidimensional. • DSM-5 cannabis withdrawal items were unidimensional. • The criterion set did not function differently by demographic/clinical covariates. • DSM-5 CUD diagnostic set is reliable and informative among adults with frequent use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The DSM-5 definition of cannabis use disorder (CUD) differs from DSM-IV by combining abuse and dependence criteria (without the legal criterion) and including withdrawal and craving criteria. Information on construct validity of the DSM-5 CUD diagnosis and severity levels is lacking. This study examines the associations between DSM-5 CUD and severity classification and a set of concurrent validators. Adults with problematic substance use were recruited from two settings: a research setting in an urban medical center and a suburban inpatient addiction treatment program. Participants who reported past-year cannabis use (n = 392) were included in this study and completed a semi-structured, clinician-administered diagnostic interview. Regression models estimated the associations between binary DSM-5 CUD and severity levels with a set of validators, including cannabis use variables, psychopathology, and functional impairment. DSM-5 CUD and all severity levels were associated with cannabis use validators, including number of days used, self-reporting that cannabis use was a major problem, and greater cannabis craving. DSM-5 CUD and severe CUD were associated with other psychiatric disorders and social impairment. Findings add information about the validity of DSM-5 CUD diagnosis and severity levels, with severe CUD receiving the strongest support from its association with validators across all domains, as distinct from the mild and moderate CUD measures that were associated with cannabis-specific validators alone. Severe CUD is likely to require more intensive treatment to bolster physical, psychiatric, and social functioning, whereas the mild and moderate severity thresholds provide useful information for identifying less severe disorders for prevention and brief intervention. [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]