Sara L Simon1, Andy C Dean, Xochitl Cordova, John R Monterosso, Edythe D London. 1. Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences and Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, California 90095-1759, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this work was to assess neuropsychological functioning of individuals in early abstinence from methamphetamine dependence and to test for cognitive change over the first month of abstinence. METHOD: Methamphetamine-dependent subjects in very early abstinence from methamphetamine (4-9 days; n = 27) were compared with healthy comparison subjects (n = 28) on a test battery that evaluated five cognitive domains (attention/processing speed, learning/memory, working memory, timed executive functioning, and untimed executive functioning). A subsample of the methamphetamine-dependent subjects (n =18), who maintained abstinence for 1 month, as well as a subsample of the comparison subjects (n = 21), were retested. RESULTS: At the first assessment, the methamphetamine-dependent subjects showed significantly worse performance than the comparison group on a test of processing speed; they also performed 0.31 SDs worse than the control group on a global battery composite score (p < .05). After a month of abstinence, methamphetamine-dependent subjects demonstrated slightly more cognitive improvement than healthy control subjects on the entire cognitive battery, but this difference did not approach statistical significance (p = .33). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that methamphetamine-dependent subjects do not show considerable cognitive gains in the first month of abstinence. A greater length of abstinence may be needed for cognitive improvement.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this work was to assess neuropsychological functioning of individuals in early abstinence from methamphetamine dependence and to test for cognitive change over the first month of abstinence. METHOD:Methamphetamine-dependent subjects in very early abstinence from methamphetamine (4-9 days; n = 27) were compared with healthy comparison subjects (n = 28) on a test battery that evaluated five cognitive domains (attention/processing speed, learning/memory, working memory, timed executive functioning, and untimed executive functioning). A subsample of the methamphetamine-dependent subjects (n =18), who maintained abstinence for 1 month, as well as a subsample of the comparison subjects (n = 21), were retested. RESULTS: At the first assessment, the methamphetamine-dependent subjects showed significantly worse performance than the comparison group on a test of processing speed; they also performed 0.31 SDs worse than the control group on a global battery composite score (p < .05). After a month of abstinence, methamphetamine-dependent subjects demonstrated slightly more cognitive improvement than healthy control subjects on the entire cognitive battery, but this difference did not approach statistical significance (p = .33). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that methamphetamine-dependent subjects do not show considerable cognitive gains in the first month of abstinence. A greater length of abstinence may be needed for cognitive improvement.
Authors: Adrianna Mendrek; John Monterosso; Sara L Simon; Murray Jarvik; Arthur Brody; Richard Olmstead; Catherine P Domier; Mark S Cohen; Monique Ernst; Edythe D London Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2005-07-11 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Catherine P Domier; John R Monterosso; Arthur L Brody; Sara L Simon; Adrianna Mendrek; Richard Olmstead; Murray E Jarvik; Mark S Cohen; Edythe D London Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2007-07-19 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: William F Hoffman; Meredith Moore; Raymond Templin; Bentson McFarland; Robert J Hitzemann; Suzanne H Mitchell Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2006-08-17 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: N D Volkow; L Chang; G J Wang; J S Fowler; D Franceschi; M J Sedler; S J Gatley; R Hitzemann; Y S Ding; C Wong; J Logan Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2001-03 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Debra S Harris; Harold Boxenbaum; E Thomas Everhart; Gina Sequeira; John E Mendelson; Reese T Jones Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Kevin Sean Murnane; Shane Alan Perrine; Brendan James Finton; Matthew Peter Galloway; Leonard Lee Howell; William Edward Fantegrossi Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2011-10-13 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Dara G Ghahremani; Golnaz Tabibnia; John Monterosso; Gerhard Hellemann; Russell A Poldrack; Edythe D London Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2011-02-02 Impact factor: 7.853
Authors: Richard A Rawson; Joy Chudzynski; Rachel Gonzales; Larissa Mooney; Daniel Dickerson; Alfonso Ang; Brett Dolezal; Christopher B Cooper Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2015-04-15
Authors: Andy C Dean; Milky Kohno; Angelica M Morales; Dara G Ghahremani; Edythe D London Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2015-03-18 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Angelica M Morales; Buyean Lee; Gerhard Hellemann; Joseph O'Neill; Edythe D London Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2012-03-22 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Andy C Dean; Edythe D London; Catherine A Sugar; Christina M R Kitchen; Aimee-Noelle Swanson; Keith G Heinzerling; Ari D Kalechstein; Steven Shoptaw Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2009-07-15 Impact factor: 4.492