Musa Sami1,2, Diego Quattrone3, Laura Ferraro4, Giada Tripoli1, Erika La Cascia4, Charlotte Gayer-Anderson5, Jean-Paul Selten6,7, Celso Arango8, Miguel Bernardo9, Ilaria Tarricone10, Andrea Tortelli11, Giusy Gatto10, Simona Del Peschio10, Cristina Marta Del-Ben12, Bart P Rutten7, Peter B Jones13,14, Jim van Os1,7,15, Lieuwe de Haan16, Craig Morgan5, Cathryn Lewis3, Sagnik Bhattacharyya1, Tom P Freeman17,18, Michael Lynskey18, Robin M Murray1, Marta Di Forti3. 1. Department of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, De Crespigny Park, Denmark Hill, London, SE5 8AF, UK. 2. Institute of Mental Health, Jubilee Campus, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK. 3. Social, Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, SE5 8AF, UK. 4. Department of Experimental Biomedicine and Clinical Neuroscience, University of Palermo, Via G. La Loggia 1, 9012 9Palermo, Italy. 5. Department of Health Service and Population Research, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, De Crespigny Park, Denmark Hill, London, SE5 8AF, UK. 6. Rivierduinen Institute for Mental Health Care, Sandifortdreef 19, 2333 ZZLeiden, The Netherlands. 7. Department of Psychiatry and Neuropsychology, School for Mental Health and Neuroscience, South Limburg Mental Health Research and Teaching Network, Maastricht University Medical Centre, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MDMaastricht, The Netherlands. 8. Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, School of Medicine, Universidad Complutense, IiSGM (CIBERSAM), C/Doctor Esquerdo 46, 28007Madrid, Spain. 9. Department of Medicine, Barcelona Clinic Schizophrenia Unit, Neuroscience Institute, Hospital clinic, University of Barcelona, IDIBAPS, CIBERSAM, Barcelona, Spain. 10. Department of Medical and Surgical Science, Psychiatry Unit, Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna, Viale Pepoli 5, 40126Bologna, Italy. 11. Etablissement Public de Santé Maison Blanche, Paris, 75020, France. 12. Division of Psychiatry, Department of Neuroscience and Behaviour, Ribeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. 13. Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Herchel Smith Building for Brain & Mind Sciences, Forvie Site, Robinson Way, Cambridge, CB2 0SZ, UK. 14. CAMEO Early Intervention Service, Cambridgeshire & Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, CB21 5EF, UK. 15. Brain Centre Rudolf Magnus, Utrecht University Medical Centre, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 16. Department of Psychiatry, Early Psychosis Section, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 5, 1105 AZAmsterdam, The Netherlands. 17. Department of Psychology, Addiciton and Mental Health Group (AIM), University of Bath, BA2 7AY, UK. 18. National Addiction Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, 4 Windsor Walk, LondonSE5 8BB, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: First episode psychosis (FEP) patients who use cannabis experience more frequent psychotic and euphoric intoxication experiences compared to controls. It is not clear whether this is consequent to patients being more vulnerable to the effects of cannabis use or to their heavier pattern of use. We aimed to determine whether extent of use predicted psychotic-like and euphoric intoxication experiences in patients and controls and whether this differs between groups. METHODS: We analysed data on patients who had ever used cannabis (n = 655) and controls who had ever used cannabis (n = 654) across 15 sites from six countries in the EU-GEI study (2010-2015). We used multiple regression to model predictors of cannabis-induced experiences and to determine if there was an interaction between caseness and extent of use. RESULTS: Caseness, frequency of cannabis use and money spent on cannabis predicted psychotic-like and euphoric experiences (p ⩽ 0.001). For psychotic-like experiences (PEs) there was a significant interaction for caseness × frequency of use (p < 0.001) and caseness × money spent on cannabis (p = 0.001) such that FEP patients had increased experiences at increased levels of use compared to controls. There was no significant interaction for euphoric experiences (p > 0.5). CONCLUSIONS: FEP patients are particularly sensitive to increased psychotic-like, but not euphoric experiences, at higher levels of cannabis use compared to controls. This suggests a specific psychotomimetic response in FEP patients related to heavy cannabis use. Clinicians should enquire regarding cannabis related PEs and advise that lower levels of cannabis use are associated with less frequent PEs.
BACKGROUND: First episode psychosis (FEP) patients who use cannabis experience more frequent psychotic and euphoric intoxication experiences compared to controls. It is not clear whether this is consequent to patients being more vulnerable to the effects of cannabis use or to their heavier pattern of use. We aimed to determine whether extent of use predicted psychotic-like and euphoric intoxication experiences in patients and controls and whether this differs between groups. METHODS: We analysed data on patients who had ever used cannabis (n = 655) and controls who had ever used cannabis (n = 654) across 15 sites from six countries in the EU-GEI study (2010-2015). We used multiple regression to model predictors of cannabis-induced experiences and to determine if there was an interaction between caseness and extent of use. RESULTS: Caseness, frequency of cannabis use and money spent on cannabis predicted psychotic-like and euphoric experiences (p ⩽ 0.001). For psychotic-like experiences (PEs) there was a significant interaction for caseness × frequency of use (p < 0.001) and caseness × money spent on cannabis (p = 0.001) such that FEP patients had increased experiences at increased levels of use compared to controls. There was no significant interaction for euphoric experiences (p > 0.5). CONCLUSIONS: FEP patients are particularly sensitive to increased psychotic-like, but not euphoric experiences, at higher levels of cannabis use compared to controls. This suggests a specific psychotomimetic response in FEP patients related to heavy cannabis use. Clinicians should enquire regarding cannabis related PEs and advise that lower levels of cannabis use are associated with less frequent PEs.
Authors: Robert C Smith; Henry Sershen; David S Janowsky; Abel Lajtha; Matthew Grieco; Jon A Gangoiti; Ilya Gertsman; Wynnona S Johnson; Thomas D Marcotte; John M Davis Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2022-07-04 Impact factor: 5.435
Authors: M Ferrer-Quintero; D Fernández; R López-Carrilero; I Birulés; A Barajas; E Lorente-Rovira; A Luengo; L Díaz-Cutraro; M Verdaguer; H García-Mieres; A Gutiérrez-Zotes; E Grasa; E Pousa; E Huerta-Ramos; T Pélaez; M L Barrigón; J Gómez-Benito; F González-Higueras; I Ruiz-Delgado; J Cid; S Moritz; J Sevilla-Llewellyn-Jones; S Ochoa Journal: Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci Date: 2022-07-08 Impact factor: 5.760
Authors: Taylor McGuckin; Mark A Ferro; David Hammond; Shannon Stewart; Bridget Maloney-Hall; Nawaf Madi; Amy Porath; Christopher M Perlman Journal: Can J Psychiatry Date: 2020-12-31 Impact factor: 4.356