Search

Purpose of Review: Despite widespread marijuana use among adolescents, accurate information on known health effects is poorly disseminated to clinicians and their patients. Amidst rapidly evolving drug policy in the United States and elsewhere, it is imperative that providers understand the short-term and long-term consequences of marijuana use., Recent Findings: Research on regular marijuana use highlights a unique susceptibility of the developing adolescent brain to adverse neurocognitive and psychiatric outcomes. Although studies have not firmly established causality, onset of regular marijuana use in adolescence is associated with later decline in cognitive function, as well as with adult onset of psychosis and anxiety. Educational and employment outcomes may be poorer among regular marijuana-using adolescents. A number of other adverse respiratory, cardiovascular, endocrine and gastrointestinal associations with regular marijuana use have also been established. Good screening tools and promising brief intervention and behavioral treatment programs are available to clinicians, who are in a position to identify problematic marijuana use among adolescents., Summary: A common misperception among youth is that marijuana use is without harm. However, adolescent marijuana use may have measurable, durable, and potentially irreversible effects on later cognitive function and mental health.

Background: Low-level environmental cadmium exposure and neurotoxicity has not been well studied in adults. Our goal was to evaluate associations between neurocognitive exam scores and a biomarker of cumulative cadmium exposure among adults in the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III)., Methods: NHANES III is a nationally representative cross-sectional survey of the U.S. population conducted between 1988 and 1994. We analyzed data from a subset of participants, age 20-59, who participated in a computer-based neurocognitive evaluation. There were four outcome measures: the Simple Reaction Time Test (SRTT: visual motor speed), the Symbol Digit Substitution Test (SDST: attention/perception), the Serial Digit Learning Test (SDLT) trials-to-criterion, and the SDLT total-error-score (SDLT-tests: learning recall/short-term memory). We fit multivariable-adjusted models to estimate associations between urinary cadmium concentrations and test scores., Results: 5662 participants underwent neurocognitive screening, and 5572 (98%) of these had a urinary cadmium level available. Prior to multivariable-adjustment, higher urinary cadmium concentration was associated with worse performance in each of the 4 outcomes. After multivariable-adjustment most of these relationships were not significant, and age was the most influential variable in reducing the association magnitudes. However among never-smokers with no known occupational cadmium exposure the relationship between urinary cadmium and SDST score (attention/perception) was significant: a 1 μg/L increase in urinary cadmium corresponded to a 1.93% (95%CI: 0.05, 3.81) decrement in performance., Conclusions: These results suggest that higher cumulative cadmium exposure in adults may be related to subtly decreased performance in tasks requiring attention and perception, particularly among those adults whose cadmium exposure is primarily though diet (no smoking or work based cadmium exposure). This association was observed among exposure levels that have been considered to be without adverse effects and these levels are common in U.S. adults. Thus further research into the potential neurocognitive effects of cadmium exposure is warranted. Because cumulative cadmium exposure may mediate some of the effects of age and smoking on cognition, adjusting for these variables may result in the underestimation of associations with cumulative cadmium exposure. Prospective studies that include never-smokers and non-occupationally exposed individuals are needed to clarify these issues.

Use of prescription stimulants by normal healthy individuals to enhance cognition is said to be on the rise. Who is using these medications for cognitive enhancement, and how prevalent is this practice? Do prescription stimulants in fact enhance cognition for normal healthy people? We review the epidemiological and cognitive neuroscience literatures in search of answers to these questions. Epidemiological issues addressed include the prevalence of nonmedical stimulant use, user demographics, methods by which users obtain prescription stimulants, and motivations for use. Cognitive neuroscience issues addressed include the effects of prescription stimulants on learning and executive function, as well as the task and individual variables associated with these effects. Little is known about the prevalence of prescription stimulant use for cognitive enhancement outside of student populations. Among college students, estimates of use vary widely but, taken together, suggest that the practice is commonplace. The cognitive effects of stimulants on normal healthy people cannot yet be characterized definitively, despite the volume of research that has been carried out on these issues. Published evidence suggests that declarative memory can be improved by stimulants, with some evidence consistent with enhanced consolidation of memories. Effects on the executive functions of working memory and cognitive control are less reliable but have been found for at least some individuals on some tasks. In closing, we enumerate the many outstanding questions that remain to be addressed by future research and also identify obstacles facing this research., ((PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved).)

Rationale: When humans are acutely exposed to multiple stressors, cognitive performance is substantially degraded. Few practical strategies are available to sustain performance under such conditions., Objective: This study examined whether moderate doses of caffeine would reduce adverse effects of sleep deprivation and exposure to severe environmental and operational stress on cognitive performance., Methods: Volunteers were 68 U.S. Navy Sea-Air-Land (SEAL) trainees, randomly assigned to receive either 100, 200, or 300 mg caffeine or placebo in capsule form after 72 h of sleep deprivation and continuous exposure to other stressors. Cognitive tests administered included scanning visual vigilance, four-choice visual reaction time, a matching-to-sample working memory task and a repeated acquisition test of motor learning and memory. Mood state, marksmanship, and saliva caffeine were also assessed. Testing was conducted 1 and 8 h after treatment., Results: Sleep deprivation and environmental stress adversely affected performance and mood. Caffeine, in a dose-dependent manner, mitigated many adverse effects of exposure to multiple stressors. Caffeine (200 and 300 mg) significantly improved visual vigilance, choice reaction time, repeated acquisition, self-reported fatigue and sleepiness with the greatest effects on tests of vigilance, reaction time, and alertness. Marksmanship, a task that requires fine motor coordination and steadiness, was not affected by caffeine. The greatest effects of caffeine were present 1 h post-administration, but significant effects persisted for 8 h., Conclusions: Even in the most adverse circumstances, moderate doses of caffeine can improve cognitive function, including vigilance, learning, memory, and mood state. When cognitive performance is critical and must be maintained during exposure to severe stress, administration of caffeine may provide a significant advantage. A dose of 200 mg appears to be optimal under such conditions.

The recent and important study by Schwartz found that almost three-fourths of the benefits of reduced lead exposure in children are in the form of earnings gains (earnings losses avoided). New data on recent trends in returns to education and cognitive skills in the labor market suggest a need to revise this estimate upward. Based on an analysis of data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, the present study estimates that an upward revision of at least 50% (or $2.5 billion per annual birth cohort) is indicated. The study also finds evidence that percentage earnings gains are considerably larger for females than for males.