AIMS: In field studies assessing cognitive function in illicit ecstasy users, there are several frequent confounding factors that might plausibly bias the findings toward an overestimate of ecstasy-induced neurocognitive toxicity. We designed an investigation seeking to minimize these possible sources of bias. DESIGN: We compared illicit ecstasy users and non-users while (1) excluding individuals with significant life-time exposure to other illicit drugs or alcohol; (2) requiring that all participants be members of the 'rave' subculture; and (3) testing all participants with breath, urine and hair samples at the time of evaluation to exclude possible surreptitious substance use. We compared groups with adjustment for age, gender, race/ethnicity, family-of-origin variables and childhood history of conduct disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. We provide significance levels without correction for multiple comparisons. SETTING: Field study. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-two illicit ecstasy users and 59 non-users, aged 18-45 years. MEASUREMENTS: Battery of 15 neuropsychological tests tapping a range of cognitive functions. FINDINGS: We found little evidence of decreased cognitive performance in ecstasy users, save for poorer strategic self-regulation, possibly reflecting increased impulsivity. However, this finding might have reflected a pre-morbid attribute of ecstasy users, rather than a residual neurotoxic effect of the drug. CONCLUSIONS: In a study designed to minimize limitations found in many prior investigations, we failed to demonstrate marked residual cognitive effects in ecstasy users. This finding contrasts with many previous findings-including our own-and emphasizes the need for continued caution in interpreting field studies of cognitive function in illicit ecstasy users.
AIMS: In field studies assessing cognitive function in illicit ecstasy users, there are several frequent confounding factors that might plausibly bias the findings toward an overestimate of ecstasy-induced neurocognitive toxicity. We designed an investigation seeking to minimize these possible sources of bias. DESIGN: We compared illicit ecstasy users and non-users while (1) excluding individuals with significant life-time exposure to other illicit drugs or alcohol; (2) requiring that all participants be members of the 'rave' subculture; and (3) testing all participants with breath, urine and hair samples at the time of evaluation to exclude possible surreptitious substance use. We compared groups with adjustment for age, gender, race/ethnicity, family-of-origin variables and childhood history of conduct disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. We provide significance levels without correction for multiple comparisons. SETTING: Field study. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-two illicit ecstasy users and 59 non-users, aged 18-45 years. MEASUREMENTS: Battery of 15 neuropsychological tests tapping a range of cognitive functions. FINDINGS: We found little evidence of decreased cognitive performance in ecstasy users, save for poorer strategic self-regulation, possibly reflecting increased impulsivity. However, this finding might have reflected a pre-morbid attribute of ecstasy users, rather than a residual neurotoxic effect of the drug. CONCLUSIONS: In a study designed to minimize limitations found in many prior investigations, we failed to demonstrate marked residual cognitive effects in ecstasy users. This finding contrasts with many previous findings-including our own-and emphasizes the need for continued caution in interpreting field studies of cognitive function in illicit ecstasy users.
Authors: Harrison G Pope; Amanda J Gruber; James I Hudson; Geoffrey Cohane; Marilyn A Huestis; Deborah Yurgelun-Todd Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2003-04-01 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Ari D Kalechstein; Richard De La Garza; James J Mahoney; William E Fantegrossi; Thomas F Newton Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2006-11-03 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Maartje M L de Win; Liesbeth Reneman; Gerry Jager; Erik-Jan P Vlieger; Sílvia D Olabarriaga; Cristina Lavini; Ivo Bisschops; Charles B L M Majoie; Jan Booij; Gerard J den Heeten; Wim van den Brink Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2006-11-01 Impact factor: 7.853
Authors: T Schilt; M M L de Win; G Jager; M W Koeter; N F Ramsey; B Schmand; W van den Brink Journal: Psychol Med Date: 2007-11-08 Impact factor: 7.723
Authors: F Indlekofer; M Piechatzek; M Daamen; C Glasmacher; R Lieb; H Pfister; O Tucha; K W Lange; H U Wittchen; C G Schütz Journal: J Psychopharmacol Date: 2008-07-17 Impact factor: 4.153
Authors: Michael C Mithoefer; Mark T Wagner; Ann T Mithoefer; Lisa Jerome; Rick Doblin Journal: J Psychopharmacol Date: 2010-07-19 Impact factor: 4.153
Authors: Christina R Di Iorio; Tristan J Watkins; Mary S Dietrich; Aize Cao; Jennifer U Blackford; Baxter Rogers; Mohammed S Ansari; Ronald M Baldwin; Rui Li; Robert M Kessler; Ronald M Salomon; Margaret Benningfield; Ronald L Cowan Journal: Arch Gen Psychiatry Date: 2011-12-05
Authors: Daniel W Curry; Matthew B Young; Andrew N Tran; Georges E Daoud; Leonard L Howell Journal: Neuropharmacology Date: 2017-10-06 Impact factor: 5.250
Authors: Tristan J Watkins; Vidya Raj; Junghee Lee; Mary S Dietrich; Aize Cao; Jennifer U Blackford; Ronald M Salomon; Sohee Park; Margaret M Benningfield; Christina R Di Iorio; Ronald L Cowan Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2012-12-16 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Craig P Motbey; Emily Karanges; Kong M Li; Shane Wilkinson; Adam R Winstock; John Ramsay; Callum Hicks; Michael D Kendig; Naomi Wyatt; Paul D Callaghan; Iain S McGregor Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-09-18 Impact factor: 3.240