Dustin C Lee1, Alan J Budney2, Mary F Brunette2, John R Hughes3, Jean-Francois Etter4, Catherine Stanger2. 1. Department of Psychiatry, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Rivermill Complex, Suite B3-1, 85 Mechanic St., Lebanon, NH 03766, United States. Electronic address: Dustin.C.Lee@Dartmouth.edu. 2. Department of Psychiatry, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Rivermill Complex, Suite B3-1, 85 Mechanic St., Lebanon, NH 03766, United States. 3. Departments of Psychiatry and Psychological Science, University of Vermont, UHC Campus/OH3, Stop # 482, 1 South Prospect St., Burlington, VT 05401, United States. 4. Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, CMU. 1, rue Michel-Servet, 1211 Genève 4, Switzerland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cannabis users frequently report concurrent tobacco use, and tobacco use is associated with poorer outcomes during treatment for cannabis use disorders (CUD). Interventions that simultaneously target both tobacco and cannabis use disorders may enhance cessation outcomes for either or both substances. METHODS: This study evaluated an intervention integrating highly effective treatments for cannabis and tobacco use disorders. Thirty-two participants meeting diagnostic criteria for CUD and reporting daily tobacco use were enrolled in a 12-week computer-assisted behavioral treatment for CUD. Participants were encouraged to participate in a tobacco intervention that included a computer-assisted behavioral treatment tailored for tobacco and cannabis co-users, and nicotine-replacement therapy (NRT). Cannabis and tobacco outcomes were evaluated using descriptive statistics and were compared to a historical control group that received treatment for CUD but not tobacco. RESULTS: Participants achieved 3.6±4.3 consecutive weeks of cannabis abstinence, which was comparable to the historical control group (3.1±4.4). A majority of the sample (78%) completed at least one tobacco module and 44% initiated NRT. Over half (56%) initiated tobacco quit attempts, and 28% were tobacco abstinent for at least two consecutive weeks. Participants showed greater reduction in tobacco use (cigarettes per day) than the historical control group, but differences in tobacco abstinence rates during the final month of treatment were not statistically significant (12.5% vs. 4%). CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that providing a tobacco intervention during treatment for CUD is feasible and may positively impact tobacco use without negatively affecting cannabis use outcomes.
BACKGROUND: Cannabis users frequently report concurrent tobacco use, and tobacco use is associated with poorer outcomes during treatment for cannabis use disorders (CUD). Interventions that simultaneously target both tobacco and cannabis use disorders may enhance cessation outcomes for either or both substances. METHODS: This study evaluated an intervention integrating highly effective treatments for cannabis and tobacco use disorders. Thirty-two participants meeting diagnostic criteria for CUD and reporting daily tobacco use were enrolled in a 12-week computer-assisted behavioral treatment for CUD. Participants were encouraged to participate in a tobacco intervention that included a computer-assisted behavioral treatment tailored for tobacco and cannabis co-users, and nicotine-replacement therapy (NRT). Cannabis and tobacco outcomes were evaluated using descriptive statistics and were compared to a historical control group that received treatment for CUD but not tobacco. RESULTS:Participants achieved 3.6±4.3 consecutive weeks of cannabis abstinence, which was comparable to the historical control group (3.1±4.4). A majority of the sample (78%) completed at least one tobacco module and 44% initiated NRT. Over half (56%) initiated tobacco quit attempts, and 28% were tobacco abstinent for at least two consecutive weeks. Participants showed greater reduction in tobacco use (cigarettes per day) than the historical control group, but differences in tobacco abstinence rates during the final month of treatment were not statistically significant (12.5% vs. 4%). CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that providing a tobacco intervention during treatment for CUD is feasible and may positively impact tobacco use without negatively affecting cannabis use outcomes.
Authors: Nicolas J Schlienz; Edward J Cone; Evan S Herrmann; Natalie A Lembeck; John M Mitchell; George E Bigelow; Ronald Flegel; Charles P LoDico; Eugene D Hayes; Ryan Vandrey Journal: J Anal Toxicol Date: 2018-05-01 Impact factor: 3.367
Authors: Erin A McClure; Rachel L Tomko; Claudia A Salazar; Saima A Akbar; Lindsay M Squeglia; Evan Herrmann; Matthew J Carpenter; Erica N Peters Journal: Exp Clin Psychopharmacol Date: 2018-12-17 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: Jean C Beckham; Kelsie A Adkisson; Jeffrey Hertzberg; Nathan A Kimbrel; Alan J Budney; Robert S Stephens; Scott D Moore; Patrick S Calhoun Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2017-12-06 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Evan S Herrmann; Ziva D Cooper; Gillinder Bedi; Divya Ramesh; Stephanie Collins Reed; Sandra D Comer; Richard W Foltin; Margaret Haney Journal: Addict Biol Date: 2018-10-31 Impact factor: 4.280
Authors: Dustin C Lee; Denise D Walker; John R Hughes; Mary F Brunette; Emily Scherer; Catherine Stanger; Jean-Francois Etter; Samantha Auty; Alan J Budney Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2018-12-18