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":"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。","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":"{\"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}","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}
Cannabidiol does not attenuate acute delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol-induced attentional bias in healthy volunteers: A randomised, double-blind, cross-over study
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).
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.
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.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
