ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT Background: There is concern about the cognitive consequences of marijuana consumption. Aim: To assess the influence of current and past marijuana use and frequency on verbal learning and memory in a sample of adults aged 21 years old. Material and Methods: Marijuana use was assessed using a clinician administered interview in 654 participants (56% females), who reported frequency of use, age of first use and whether its use led to problems in their lives. The CogState International Shopping List was administered to assess learning and memory. Results: Seventy percent reported ever using marijuana, 46% consuming during the past year and 27% during the past 30 days. The latter scored significantly lower on delayed recall. Current and frequent use were significantly associated with lower accuracy in verbal learning and memory. Conclusions: In this cohort of adults aged 21 years old, marijuana use was prevalent and related to worse verbal memory.
Antecedentes: Existe preocupación acerca de los efectos cognitivos del consumo de marihuana. Objetivo: Estudiar el efecto de consumo de marihuana presente o pasado en la capacidad de aprendizaje verbal y memoria en una muestra de adultos de 21 años. Material y Métodos: El consumo de marihuana fue evaluado mediante una entrevista médica en 654 adultos de 21 años (56% mujeres), quienes informaron acerca de la frecuencia de consumo, edad de comienzo y si el consumo les ha causado problemas en sus vidas. Se les administró el Cogstate International Shopping List para evaluar aprendizaje y memoria. Resultados: El 70% informó haber consumido marihuana alguna vez, 46% la usó durante el último año y el 27% en los últimos 30 días. Estos últimos tuvieron un menor puntaje en memoria tardía. El consumo actual y frecuente se asoció a una menor precisión en la capacidad de aprendizaje verbal y memoria. Conclusiones: En esta cohorte de adultos de 21 años, el consumo de marihuana fue prevalente y relacionado a una menor memoria verbal.
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Young Adult , Mental Recall/drug effects , Verbal Learning/drug effects , Cannabinoids/pharmacology , Marijuana Use/epidemiology , Memory/drug effects , Time Factors , Chile/epidemiology , Marijuana Abuse/etiology , Marijuana Abuse/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Cognition Disorders/complications , Marijuana Use/adverse effects , Neuropsychological TestsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Selegiline hydrochloride, a selective MAO-B inhibitor is known to improve motor functions in Parkinson's disease (PD). The present study was undertaken to study the effect of selegiline on memory and intelligence of PD patients. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Thirty two patients of PD were divided in two groups: selegiline group (n = 17) received 10 mg selegiline per day and control group (n = 15) did not receive selegiline. Patients receiving trihexyphenidyl and selegiline were excluded. All other treatment remained unchanged. All patients were examined at baseline and after three months for change in UPDRS score, WAIS score, memory test and P300. RESULTS: Patients in selegiline group had less severe disease (UPDRS score 24.11 +/- 14.07) as compared to controls (UPDRS score 40.53 +/- 18.52). There was significant improvement in UPDRS score (p < 0.05), WAIS (p < 0.001) and memory (p < 0.001) in selegiline group. In the control group there was a significant prolongation of P300 latency (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The study suggests that selegiline improves memory functions and intelligence in PD patients in addition to motor functions. It also prevents prolongation of P300 latency which is a marker of cognitive function.
Subject(s)
Adult , Antiparkinson Agents/adverse effects , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Intelligence/drug effects , Male , Mental Recall/drug effects , Middle Aged , Neuropsychological Tests , Parkinson Disease/drug therapy , Selegiline/adverse effectsABSTRACT
Forty-five adult patients underwent a noninhalational anaesthetic method for investigation of awareness during surgery and recall of events associated with surgery in postoperative period. All the patients were divided into two groups. The first group of patients were male and had upper abdominal operations. The second group were female and had lower abdominal operations. No significant difference was found between these two groups either in requirements of depth of anaesthesia or in the evidence of per-operative awakefulness. Eighty percent patients of both the groups showed various signs of peroperative awakefulness but did not recall any events associated with surgery in the postoperative period. There was no report of dream either.