Bennis Pavisian1, Bradley J MacIntosh1, Greg Szilagyi1, Richard W Staines1, Paul O'Connor1, Anthony Feinstein2. 1. From the Sunnybrook Research Institute (B.P., B.J.M., G.S., A.F.) and St. Michael's Hospital (P.O.), University of Toronto (P.O., A.F.); and Department of Kinesiology (R.W.S.), University of Waterloo, Canada. 2. From the Sunnybrook Research Institute (B.P., B.J.M., G.S., A.F.) and St. Michael's Hospital (P.O.), University of Toronto (P.O., A.F.); and Department of Kinesiology (R.W.S.), University of Waterloo, Canada. ant.feinstein@utoronto.ca.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine functional and structural neuroimaging correlates of cognitive dysfunction associated with cannabis use in multiple sclerosis (MS). METHODS: In a cross-sectional study, 20 subjects with MS who smoked cannabis and 19 noncannabis users with MS, matched on demographic and neurologic variables, underwent fMRI while completing a test of working memory, the N-Back. Resting-state fMRI and structural MRI data (lesion and normal-appearing brain tissue volumes, diffusion tensor imaging metrics) were also collected. Neuropsychological data pertaining to verbal (Selective Reminding Test Revised) and visual (10/36 Spatial Recall Test) memory, information processing speed (Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test [2- and 3-second versions] and Symbol Digit Modalities Test), and attention (Word List Generation) were obtained. RESULTS: The cannabis group performed more poorly on the more demanding of the Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test tasks (i.e., 2-second version) (p < 0.02) and the 10/36 Spatial Recall Test (p < 0.03). Cannabis users had more diffuse cerebral activation across all N-Back trials and made more errors on the 2-Back task (p < 0.006), during which they displayed increased activation relative to nonusers in parietal (p < 0.007) and anterior cingulate (p < 0.001) regions implicated in working memory. No group differences in resting-state networks or structural MRI variables were found. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with MS who smoke cannabis are more cognitively impaired than nonusers. Cannabis further compromises cerebral compensatory mechanisms, already faulty in MS. These imaging data boost the construct validity of the neuropsychological findings and act as a cautionary note to cannabis users and prescribers.
OBJECTIVE: To determine functional and structural neuroimaging correlates of cognitive dysfunction associated with cannabis use in multiple sclerosis (MS). METHODS: In a cross-sectional study, 20 subjects with MS who smoked cannabis and 19 noncannabis users with MS, matched on demographic and neurologic variables, underwent fMRI while completing a test of working memory, the N-Back. Resting-state fMRI and structural MRI data (lesion and normal-appearing brain tissue volumes, diffusion tensor imaging metrics) were also collected. Neuropsychological data pertaining to verbal (Selective Reminding Test Revised) and visual (10/36 Spatial Recall Test) memory, information processing speed (Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test [2- and 3-second versions] and Symbol Digit Modalities Test), and attention (Word List Generation) were obtained. RESULTS: The cannabis group performed more poorly on the more demanding of the Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test tasks (i.e., 2-second version) (p < 0.02) and the 10/36 Spatial Recall Test (p < 0.03). Cannabis users had more diffuse cerebral activation across all N-Back trials and made more errors on the 2-Back task (p < 0.006), during which they displayed increased activation relative to nonusers in parietal (p < 0.007) and anterior cingulate (p < 0.001) regions implicated in working memory. No group differences in resting-state networks or structural MRI variables were found. CONCLUSIONS:Patients with MS who smoke cannabis are more cognitively impaired than nonusers. Cannabis further compromises cerebral compensatory mechanisms, already faulty in MS. These imaging data boost the construct validity of the neuropsychological findings and act as a cautionary note to cannabis users and prescribers.
Authors: Jennifer T Sneider; Harrison G Pope; Marisa M Silveri; Norah S Simpson; Staci A Gruber; Deborah A Yurgelun-Todd Journal: Eur Neuropsychopharmacol Date: 2008-06-20 Impact factor: 4.600
Authors: R I Block; D S O'Leary; R D Hichwa; J C Augustinack; L L Ponto; M M Ghoneim; S Arndt; J C Ehrhardt; R R Hurtig; G L Watkins; J A Hall; P E Nathan; N C Andreasen Journal: Neuroreport Date: 2000-03-20 Impact factor: 1.837
Authors: R Martín-Santos; A B Fagundo; J A Crippa; Z Atakan; S Bhattacharyya; P Allen; P Fusar-Poli; S Borgwardt; M Seal; G F Busatto; P McGuire Journal: Psychol Med Date: 2009-07-23 Impact factor: 7.723
Authors: H A Wishart; A J Saykin; B C McDonald; A C Mamourian; L A Flashman; K R Schuschu; K A Ryan; C E Fadul; L H Kasper Journal: Neurology Date: 2004-01-27 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: April D Thames; Taylor P Kuhn; Timothy J Williamson; Jacob D Jones; Zanjbeel Mahmood; Andrea Hammond Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2016-11-14 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Stacey S Cofield; Amber Salter; Tuula Tyry; Christina Crowe; Gary R Cutter; Robert J Fox; Ruth Ann Marrie Journal: Neurol Clin Pract Date: 2017-08