Cannabidiol does not attenuate acute delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol-induced attentional bias in healthy volunteers: A randomised, double-blind, cross-over study

IF 5.2 1区医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY Addiction Pub Date : 2023-10-11 DOI:10.1111/add.16353

Dominic Oliver, Amir Englund, Edward Chesney, Lucy Chester, Jack Wilson, Simina Sovi, Stina Wigroth, John Hodsoll, John Strang, Robin M. Murray, Tom P. Freeman, Paolo Fusar-Poli, Philip McGuire

{"title":"Cannabidiol does not attenuate acute delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol-induced attentional bias in healthy volunteers: A randomised, double-blind, cross-over study","authors":"Dominic Oliver, Amir Englund, Edward Chesney, Lucy Chester, Jack Wilson, Simina Sovi, Stina Wigroth, John Hodsoll, John Strang, Robin M. Murray, Tom P. Freeman, Paolo Fusar-Poli, Philip McGuire","doi":"10.1111/add.16353","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aims</h3>\n \n <p>To test how attentional bias and explicit liking are influenced by delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and whether these effects are moderated by cannabidiol (CBD).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Design</h3>\n \n <p>Double-blind, randomised, within-subjects cross-over study.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Setting</h3>\n \n <p>NIHR Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Facility at King's College Hospital, London, United Kingdom.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Participants/Cases</h3>\n \n <p>Forty-six infrequent cannabis users (cannabis use <1 per week).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Intervention(s)</h3>\n \n <p>Across four sessions, participants inhaled vaporised cannabis containing 10 mg of THC and either 0 mg (0:1 CBD:THC), 10 mg (1:1), 20 mg (2:1) or 30 mg (3:1) of CBD, administered in a randomised order and counter-balanced across participants (a total of 24 order groups).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Measurements</h3>\n \n <p>Participants completed two tasks: (1) Attentional Bias (AB), comparing reaction times toward visual probes presented behind 28 target stimuli (cannabis/food) compared with probes behind corresponding non-target (neutral) stimuli. Participants responding more quickly to probes behind target than non-target stimuli would indicate greater attentional bias to cannabis/food; (2) Picture Rating (PR), where all AB stimuli were rated on a 7-point pleasantness scale, measuring explicit liking.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Findings</h3>\n \n <p>During the AB task, participants were more biased toward cannabis stimuli in the 0:1 condition compared with baseline (mean difference = 12.2, 95% confidence intervals [CIs] = 1.20–23.3, <i>d</i> = 0.41, <i>P</i> = 0.03). No other significant AB or PR differences were found between cannabis and food stimuli between baseline and 0:1 condition (<i>P</i> > 0.05). No significant CBD effect was found on AB or PR task performance at any dose (<i>P</i> > 0.05). There was additionally no cumulative effect of THC exposure on AB or PR outcomes (<i>P</i> > 0.05).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>A double-blind, randomised, cross-over study among infrequent cannabis users found that inhaled delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol increased attentional bias toward cannabis in the absence of explicit liking, a marker of liability toward cannabis use disorder. At the concentrations normally found in legal and illegal cannabis, cannabidiol had no influence on this effect.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":109,"journal":{"name":"Addiction","volume":"119 2","pages":"322-333"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/add.16353","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Addiction","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/add.16353","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aims

To test how attentional bias and explicit liking are influenced by delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and whether these effects are moderated by cannabidiol (CBD).

Design

Double-blind, randomised, within-subjects cross-over study.

Setting

NIHR Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Facility at King's College Hospital, London, United Kingdom.

Participants/Cases

Forty-six infrequent cannabis users (cannabis use <1 per week).

Intervention(s)

Across four sessions, participants inhaled vaporised cannabis containing 10 mg of THC and either 0 mg (0:1 CBD:THC), 10 mg (1:1), 20 mg (2:1) or 30 mg (3:1) of CBD, administered in a randomised order and counter-balanced across participants (a total of 24 order groups).

Measurements

Participants completed two tasks: (1) Attentional Bias (AB), comparing reaction times toward visual probes presented behind 28 target stimuli (cannabis/food) compared with probes behind corresponding non-target (neutral) stimuli. Participants responding more quickly to probes behind target than non-target stimuli would indicate greater attentional bias to cannabis/food; (2) Picture Rating (PR), where all AB stimuli were rated on a 7-point pleasantness scale, measuring explicit liking.

Findings

During the AB task, participants were more biased toward cannabis stimuli in the 0:1 condition compared with baseline (mean difference = 12.2, 95% confidence intervals [CIs] = 1.20–23.3, d = 0.41, P = 0.03). No other significant AB or PR differences were found between cannabis and food stimuli between baseline and 0:1 condition (P > 0.05). No significant CBD effect was found on AB or PR task performance at any dose (P > 0.05). There was additionally no cumulative effect of THC exposure on AB or PR outcomes (P > 0.05).

Conclusions

A double-blind, randomised, cross-over study among infrequent cannabis users found that inhaled delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol increased attentional bias toward cannabis in the absence of explicit liking, a marker of liability toward cannabis use disorder. At the concentrations normally found in legal and illegal cannabis, cannabidiol had no influence on this effect.

Abstract Image

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

大麻二酚不能减轻健康志愿者中由δ-9-四氢大麻二酚引起的急性注意偏差：一项随机、双盲、交叉研究。

目的：测试delta-9-四氢大麻酚（THC）对注意力偏差和明确喜好的影响，以及这些影响是否受到大麻二酚（CBD）的调节。设计：双盲、随机、受试者内部交叉研究。背景：英国伦敦国王学院医院的NIHR Wellcome Trust临床研究机构。参与者/案例：46名不经常吸食大麻的人（大麻使用干预：在四个疗程中，参与者吸入了含有10 mg四氢大麻酚和0 mg（0:1 CBD:THC）、10 mg（1:1）、20 mg（2:1）或30 mg（3:1）CBD，以随机顺序给药，并在参与者（共24个顺序组）之间进行平衡。测量：参与者完成了两项任务：（1）注意力偏差（AB），将28个目标刺激（大麻/食物）后出现的视觉探针与相应的非目标（中性）刺激后的探针的反应时间进行比较。与非目标刺激相比，参与者对目标背后的探针反应更快，这表明他们对大麻/食物有更大的注意力偏见；（2）图片评分（PR），所有AB刺激都以7分的愉悦感量表进行评分，测量明确的喜好。研究结果：在AB任务中，与基线相比，参与者在0:1条件下更倾向于大麻刺激（平均差异 = 12.2，95%置信区间[CI] = 1.20-23.3，d = 0.41，P = 0.03）。在基线和0:1条件下，大麻和食物刺激之间没有发现其他显著的AB或PR差异（P > 0.05）。任何剂量的CBD对AB或PR任务表现均无显著影响（P > 0.05）。此外，THC暴露对AB或PR结果没有累积影响（P > 结论：一项针对罕见大麻使用者的双盲、随机、交叉研究发现，在没有明确喜好的情况下，吸入delta-9-四氢大麻酚会增加对大麻的注意力偏向，这是大麻使用障碍的一个标志。在合法和非法大麻中通常存在的浓度下，大麻二酚对这种影响没有影响。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Addiction 医学-精神病学

CiteScore

10.80

自引率

6.70%

发文量

319

审稿时长

3 months

期刊介绍： Addiction publishes peer-reviewed research reports on pharmacological and behavioural addictions, bringing together research conducted within many different disciplines. Its goal is to serve international and interdisciplinary scientific and clinical communication, to strengthen links between science and policy, and to stimulate and enhance the quality of debate. We seek submissions that are not only technically competent but are also original and contain information or ideas of fresh interest to our international readership. We seek to serve low- and middle-income (LAMI) countries as well as more economically developed countries. Addiction’s scope spans human experimental, epidemiological, social science, historical, clinical and policy research relating to addiction, primarily but not exclusively in the areas of psychoactive substance use and/or gambling. In addition to original research, the journal features editorials, commentaries, reviews, letters, and book reviews.