Search

Background: For cannabis-dependent subjects, the relationship between cannabis withdrawal syndrome (CWS) severity and the urine cannabinoid concentrations are unclear; we investigated this using a commercial point-of-care (POC) enzyme immunoassay detecting 11-nor-9-carboxy-Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC-COOH). Methods: Observational study of 78 adult chronic cannabis-dependent subjects assessed over a 24-day inpatient detoxification treatment, with 13 serial measurement days. Repeated Measures Correlation and Multilevel Linear Models were employed. Results: Absolute urinary THC-COOH levels significantly correlated with Marijuana Withdrawal Checklist (MWC) scores across the entire study duration ( r = 0.248; p < 0.001). Correlation between serial creatinine-adjusted THC-COOH ratios and serial MWC scores emerged as significant only in the sample with higher MWC scores (>11 points) at admission ( n = 21; r = 0.247; p = 0.002). The aforementioned significant relationships have persisted when replacing the absolute THC-COOH-levels with the (relative) day-to-day change in urinary THC-COOH levels. MWC scores were significantly correlated with the Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S; r = 0.812; p < 0.001). Females showed a significantly slower decline in urine THC-COOH levels and prolonged CWS course characterized by substantial illness severity (per CGI-S), occurring in nearly 30% of cases. Conclusion: Urine cannabinoid levels (THC-COOH) determined by POC assay significantly predicted CWS severity (moderate correlation), guiding detoxification treatment duration. In patients with MWC > 11 points upon admission, creatinine-adjusted THC-COOH ratios also significantly predicted CWS severity-again with moderate effect size. Females showed prolonged urinary THC-COOH elimination and cannabis withdrawal., Competing Interests: NS has received honoraria for several activities (e.g., advisory board membership, lectures, manuscripts) from AbbVie, Camurus, Hexal, Janssen-Cilag, MSD, Medice, Mundipharma, Reckitt-Benckiser/Indivior, and Sanofi-Aventis. During the last 3 years he has participated in clinical trials financed by the pharmaceutical industry. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2020 Claus, Specka, McAnally, Scherbaum, Schifano and Bonnet.)

Background: Over the past 15 years, comparative assessments of psychoactive substance harms to both users and others have been compiled by addiction experts. None of these rankings however have included synthetic cannabinoids or non-opioid prescription analgesics (NOAs, e.g., gabapentinoids) despite evidence of increasing recreational use. We present here an updated assessment by German addiction medicine experts, considering changing Western consumption trends-including those of NOAs. Methods: In an initial survey, 101 German addiction medicine physicians evaluated both physical and psychosocial harms (in 5 dimensions) of 33 psychoactive substances including opioids and NOAs, to both users and others. In a second survey, 36 addiction medicine physicians estimated the relative weight of each health and social harm dimension to determine the overall harm rank of an individual substance. We compared our ranking with the most recent European assessment from 2014. Results: Illicit drugs such as methamphetamine, heroin, cocaine and also alcohol were judged particularly harmful, and new psychoactive drugs (cathinones, synthetic cannabinoids) were ranked among the most harmful substances. Cannabis was ranked in the midrange, on par with benzodiazepines and ketamine-somewhat more favorable compared to the last European survey. Prescribed drugs including opioids (in contrast to the USA, Canada, and Australia) were judged less harmful. NOAs were at the bottom end of the ranking. Conclusion: In Germany, alcohol and illicit drugs (including new psychoactive substances) continue to rank among the most harmful addictive substances in contrast to prescribed agents including opioid analgesics and NOAs. Current laws are incongruent with these harm rankings. This study is the first of its kind to include comparative harm rankings of several novel abused substances, both licit/prescribed and illicit., (Copyright © 2020 Bonnet, Specka, Soyka, Alberti, Bender, Grigoleit, Hermle, Hilger, Hillemacher, Kuhlmann, Kuhn, Luckhaus, Lüdecke, Reimer, Schneider, Schroeder, Stuppe, Wiesbeck, Wodarz, McAnally and Scherbaum.)