Brian J Sherman1, Nathaniel L Baker2, Lindsay M Squeglia3, Aimee L McRae-Clark3. 1. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, 67 President Street, Charleston, SC 29425, USA. Electronic address: shermanb@musc.edu. 2. Department of Public Health Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, 135 Cannon Street, Charleston, SC, 29425, USA. 3. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, 67 President Street, Charleston, SC 29425, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: More effective treatments for cannabis use disorder (CUD) are needed. Evidence suggests that biases in cognitive processing of drug-related stimuli are central to the development and maintenance of addiction. The current study examined the feasibility and effect of a novel intervention - approach bias modification (ApBM) - on cannabis approach bias and cue-reactivity. METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled proof-of-principle laboratory experiment investigated the effect of a four-session computerized ApBM training protocol on cannabis approach bias and cue-reactivity in non-treatment seeking adults age 18-65 with CUD (N = 33). ApBM procedures involved responding to cannabis or neutral stimuli using a computer joystick to model approach or avoidance behavior. Reactivity to tactile, olfactory, and auditory cue sets was assessed with physiological (blood pressure and heart rate) and subjective (cannabis craving) measures. Cannabis use was assessed via self-report. RESULTS: Participants receiving ApBM showed blunted cannabis cue-induced craving at the end of training compared to those in the sham-ApBM condition (p = .05). A preliminary gender effect on cannabis use was also found; men receiving ApBM reported fewer cannabis use sessions per day at the end of training compared to women (p = .02), while there were no differences between men and women in the sham condition. ApBM did not attenuate cannabis approach bias following training. CONCLUSION: Preliminary results indicate that ApBM may be efficacious in reducing cannabis cue-reactivity and improving cannabis use outcomes. While encouraging, the results should be interpreted with caution. Investigation of ApBM as an adjunct to psychosocial treatments for treatment-seeking adults with CUD is warranted.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: More effective treatments for cannabis use disorder (CUD) are needed. Evidence suggests that biases in cognitive processing of drug-related stimuli are central to the development and maintenance of addiction. The current study examined the feasibility and effect of a novel intervention - approach bias modification (ApBM) - on cannabis approach bias and cue-reactivity. METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled proof-of-principle laboratory experiment investigated the effect of a four-session computerized ApBM training protocol on cannabis approach bias and cue-reactivity in non-treatment seeking adults age 18-65 with CUD (N = 33). ApBM procedures involved responding to cannabis or neutral stimuli using a computer joystick to model approach or avoidance behavior. Reactivity to tactile, olfactory, and auditory cue sets was assessed with physiological (blood pressure and heart rate) and subjective (cannabis craving) measures. Cannabis use was assessed via self-report. RESULTS:Participants receiving ApBM showed blunted cannabis cue-induced craving at the end of training compared to those in the sham-ApBM condition (p = .05). A preliminary gender effect on cannabis use was also found; men receiving ApBM reported fewer cannabis use sessions per day at the end of training compared to women (p = .02), while there were no differences between men and women in the sham condition. ApBM did not attenuate cannabis approach bias following training. CONCLUSION: Preliminary results indicate that ApBM may be efficacious in reducing cannabis cue-reactivity and improving cannabis use outcomes. While encouraging, the results should be interpreted with caution. Investigation of ApBM as an adjunct to psychosocial treatments for treatment-seeking adults with CUD is warranted.
Authors: W A M Vingerhoets; L Koenders; W van den Brink; R W Wiers; A E Goudriaan; T van Amelsvoort; L de Haan; J Cousijn Journal: J Psychopharmacol Date: 2015-12-08 Impact factor: 4.153
Authors: Andrew J Waters; Saul Shiffman; Michael A Sayette; Jean A Paty; Chad J Gwaltney; Mark H Balabanis Journal: Health Psychol Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 4.267
Authors: Carolin Eberl; Reinout W Wiers; Steffen Pawelczack; Mike Rinck; Eni S Becker; Johannes Lindenmeyer Journal: Dev Cogn Neurosci Date: 2012-11-14 Impact factor: 6.464
Authors: Hollis C Karoly; Joseph P Schacht; Joanna Jacobus; Lindsay R Meredith; Charles T Taylor; Susan F Tapert; Kevin M Gray; Lindsay M Squeglia Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2019-05-14 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Joanna Jacobus; Charles T Taylor; Kevin M Gray; Lindsay R Meredith; Anna M Porter; Irene Li; Norma Castro; Lindsay M Squeglia Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2018-04-11 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Antonio Verdejo-Garcia; Valentina Lorenzetti; Victoria Manning; Hugh Piercy; Raimondo Bruno; Rob Hester; David Pennington; Serenella Tolomeo; Shalini Arunogiri; Marsha E Bates; Henrietta Bowden-Jones; Salvatore Campanella; Stacey B Daughters; Christos Kouimtsidis; Dan I Lubman; Dieter J Meyerhoff; Annaketurah Ralph; Tara Rezapour; Hosna Tavakoli; Mehran Zare-Bidoky; Anna Zilverstand; Douglas Steele; Scott J Moeller; Martin Paulus; Alex Baldacchino; Hamed Ekhtiari Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2019-12-23 Impact factor: 4.157
Authors: Joshua B B Garfield; Hugh Piercy; Shalini Arunogiri; Dan I Lubman; Samuel C Campbell; Paul G Sanfilippo; Jeff Gavin; Malcolm Hopwood; Eli Kotler; Suzanne George; Goke Okedara; Lara R Piccoli; Victoria Manning Journal: Trials Date: 2021-01-06 Impact factor: 2.279