Self-Reported Effects of Cannabis on ADHD Symptoms, ADHD Medication Side Effects, and ADHD-Related Executive Dysfunction.

OBJECTIVE: People with ADHD are more likely to use cannabis but little is known about the effects of cannabis on ADHD symptoms, ADHD medication side effects, or ADHD-related executive dysfunction. METHOD: Students (n = 1,738) completed an online survey containing measures of ADHD symptoms, cannabis use, perceived effects of cannabis on ADHD symptoms and medication side effects, as well as executive dysfunction. RESULTS: Participants with ADHD who have used cannabis reported that cannabis has acute beneficial effects on many symptoms of ADHD (e.g., hyperactivity, impulsivity). Further, they perceived cannabis to improve most of their medication side effects (e.g., irritability, anxiety). Finally, cannabis use frequency was a significant moderator of the associations between symptom severity and executive dysfunction. CONCLUSION: Results suggest people with ADHD may be using cannabis to self-medicate for many of their symptoms and medication side effects and that more frequent use may mitigate ADHD-related executive dysfunction.

Survey of Patients Employing Cannabigerol-Predominant Cannabis Preparations: Perceived Medical Effects, Adverse Events, and Withdrawal Symptoms.

Introduction: Cannabigerol (CBG), and its precursor before decarboxylation, cannabigerolic acid is sometimes labeled the "mother of all cannabinoids." The purpose of the present study was to investigate reasons for use and self-reported therapeutic effects in CBG-predominant cannabis users. Usage patterns and adverse effects, including withdrawal symptoms were also explored. Methods: Cannabidiol-predominant cannabis users were recruited online to complete an online survey assessing CBG use patterns, conditions treated with CBG-predominant cannabis (containing >50% CBG), perceived efficacy, associated adverse events, and withdrawal symptoms. One hundred twenty-seven eligible participants (U.S. residents ages 21+ who reported using CBG-predominant cannabis in the past 6 months) completed the survey. Results: Most of the samples (n=65; 51.2%) reported use of CBG-predominant products solely for medical purposes (n=46; 36.2% reported use for medical and recreational purposes; n=8; 6.3% reported recreational use only, and n=8 were missing). The most common conditions the complete sample reported using CBG to treat were anxiety (51.2%), chronic pain (40.9%), depression (33.1%), and insomnia/disturbed sleep (30.7%). Efficacy was highly rated, with the majority reporting their conditions were "very much improved" or "much improved" by CBG. Furthermore, 73.9% claimed superiority of CBG-predominant cannabis over conventional medicines for chronic pain, 80% for depression, 73% for insomnia, and 78.3% for anxiety. Forty-four percent of CBG-predominant cannabis users reported no adverse events, with 16.5% noting dry mouth, 15% sleepiness, 11.8% increased appetite, and 8.7% dry eyes. Around 84.3% reported no withdrawal symptoms, with sleep difficulties representing the most frequently endorsed withdrawal symptom (endorsed by two respondents). Conclusions: This is the first patient survey of CBG-predominant cannabis use to date, and the first to document self-reported efficacy of CBG-predominant products, particularly for anxiety, chronic pain, depression, and insomnia. Most respondents reported greater efficacy of CBG-predominant cannabis over conventional pharmacotherapy, with a benign adverse event profile and negligible withdrawal symptoms. This study establishes that humans are employing CBG and suggests that CBG-predominant cannabis-based medicines should be studied in randomized controlled trials.

Acute effects of high-potency cannabis flower and cannabis concentrates on everyday life memory and decision making.

Statewide legislation has increased public access to high-potency cannabis flower and concentrates, yet federal restrictions limit researchers' access to relatively low-potency whole-plant cannabis. The goal of this study was to examine the acute effects of high-potency cannabis on cognition using a novel methodology. We further sought to compare cognitive effects of high-potency cannabis flower with and without cannabidiol (CBD), as well as cannabis concentrates to cannabis flower. 80 cannabis users were randomly assigned to stay sober or use their funds to purchase one of three high-potency cannabis products: (1) high-potency flower (≥ 20% THC) without CBD, (2) high-potency flower with CBD, (3) high-potency concentrates (≥ 60% THC) with CBD. Participants were observed over Zoom videoconferencing while inhaling their product or remaining sober and then were administered tests of everyday life memory (prospective, source, temporal order, and false memory) and decision making (risky choice framing, consistency in risk perception, resistance to sunk cost, and over/under confidence) over Zoom. High-potency cannabis flower with CBD impaired free recall, high-potency flower without CBD and concentrates had detrimental effects on source memory, and all three products increased susceptibility to false memories. CBD did not offset impairments and concentrates were self-titrated producing comparable intoxication and impairment as flower.

Association of State Policies Allowing Medical Cannabis for Opioid Use Disorder With Dispensary Marketing for This Indication.

Importance: Misinformation about cannabis and opioid use disorder (OUD) may increase morbidity and mortality if it leads individuals with OUD to forego evidence-based treatment. It has not been systematically evaluated whether officially designating OUD as a qualifying condition for medical cannabis is associated with cannabis dispensaries suggesting cannabis as a treatment for OUD. Objective: To examine whether state-level policies designating OUD a qualifying condition for medical cannabis are associated with more dispensaries claiming cannabis can treat OUD. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional, mixed-methods study of 208 medical dispensary brands was conducted in 2019 using the brands' online content. The study included dispensaries operating in New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania, where OUD is a qualifying condition for medical cannabis, and in Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Ohio, and West Virginia, where this policy does not exist. Exposures: Presence of OUD on the list of qualifying conditions for a state's medical cannabis program. Main Outcomes and Measures: Binary indicators of whether online content from the brand said cannabis can treat OUD, can replace US Food and Drug Administration-approved medications for OUD, can be an adjunctive therapy to Food and Drug Administration-approved medications for OUD, or can be used as a substitute for opioids to treat other conditions (eg, chronic pain). Results: After excluding duplicates, listings for nonexistent dispensaries, and those without online content, 167 brands across 7 states were included in the analysis (44 [26.3%] in states where OUD was a qualifying condition and 123 [73.7%] in adjacent states). A dispensary listed in a directory for West Virginia was not operational; therefore, comparison states were Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, and Ohio. In policy-exposed states, 39% (95% CI, 23%-55%) more dispensaries claimed cannabis could treat OUD compared with unexposed states (P < .001). For replacing medications for OUD and being an adjunctive therapy, the differences were 14% (95% CI, 2%-26%; P = .002) and 28% (95% CI, 14%-42%; P < .001), respectively. The suggestion that cannabis could substitute for opioids (eg, to treat chronic pain) was made by 25% (95% CI, 9%-41%) more brands in policy-exposed states than adjacent states (P = .002). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, state-level policies designating OUD as a qualifying condition for medical cannabis were associated with more dispensaries claiming cannabis can treat OUD. In the current policy environment, in which medical claims by cannabis dispensaries are largely unregulated, these advertisements could harm patients. Future research linking these policies to patient outcomes is warranted.

Overbaked: assessing and predicting acute adverse reactions to Cannabis.

BACKGROUND: Trends toward legalizing cannabis may increase experimentation with the drug among less experienced users with limited knowledge of possible adverse reactions. This study explores the prevalence, frequency, and levels of distress produced by various acute adverse reactions to cannabis, as well as predictors of these reactions. METHODS: The Adverse Reactions Scale (ARS) was created and administered to a large sample of undergraduate college students (n = 999) who were predominantly white (> 70%), female (> 70%), recreational (> 90%) cannabis users. The ARS was administered in an anonymous online survey measuring demographics, cannabis use patterns, cannabis use motives, personality, and negative affect. RESULTS: The most prevalent adverse reactions to cannabis were coughing fits, anxiety, and paranoia, which > 50% of the sample reported experiencing. The most frequently occurring reactions were coughing fits, chest/lung discomfort, and body humming, which occurred on approximately 30-40% of cannabis use sessions. Panic attacks, fainting, and vomiting were rated as the most distressing, with mean ratings falling between "moderately" and "quite" distressing. Multiple regression analyses revealed that lower frequency of cannabis use predicted increased frequency of adverse reactions. Symptoms of cannabis use disorder, conformity motives, and anxiety sensitivity were significant predictors of both the prevalence of, and distress caused by, adverse reactions. CONCLUSIONS: Relative to past research, this study provides a more comprehensive account of possible adverse reactions to cannabis, and individual difference variables that predict these reactions. This study has implications for inexperienced cannabis users, as well as medical professionals and budtenders who provide information about cannabis use.