Cannabinoids for the treatment of cannabis use disorder: New avenues for reaching and helping youth?

Article type: Research Article

Keywords: Cannabis use disorder, Cannabis, Treatment, Youth, Pharmacotherapy, Cannabinoids, Cannabidiol, Δ-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol, FAAH inhibitors

Authors: Kristine Rømer Thomsen, Birgitte Thylstrup, Emily A. Kenyon, Rachel Lees, Lone Baandrup, Sarah W. Feldstein Ewing, Tom P. Freeman

Affiliations: Centre for Alcohol and Drug Research, Department of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, Aarhus University, Denmark; Department of Psychology, University of Rhode Island, USA; Addiction and Mental Health Group (AIM), Department of Psychology, University of Bath, UK; Mental Health Centre Copenhagen and Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Denmark

License: CC BY 4.0 This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Article links: DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.11.033  |  PubMed: 34822876  |  PMC: PMC11577263

Relevance: Relevant: mentioned in keywords or abstract

Full text: PDF (148 KB)

Cannabis and changes in potency

Cannabis is the most frequently used drug globally, with nearly 4% using cannabis in the past year (ref. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 2020). Globally, about 13 million people are estimated to meet criteria for Cannabis Use Disorder (CUD: recurrent use of cannabis despite adverse consequences, causing clinically significant impairments or distress (ref. American Psychiatric Association, 2013)) accounting for a global burden of disease of two million disability adjusted life years (ref. GBD, 2018).

Cannabis contains at least 144 different cannabinoids, of which the main psychoactive component is Δ-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC, ref. Hanus et al., 2016). THC produces its effects by acting on the endocannabinoid system, which includes cannabinoid receptors (e.g., CB1 and CB2), endocannabinoids that bind to these receptors (such as ananamide and 2-arachidonoylglycerol), and enzymes involved in their breakdown such as Fatty Acide Amide Hydrolase (FAAH). THC is a partial agonist at CB1 receptors, and frequent cannabis use results in downregulation of CB1 receptors with a potential to reverse with abstinence (ref. D’Souza et al., 2016; ref. Hirvonen et al., 2012). Another main cannabinoid is cannabidiol (CBD), which is non-intoxicating (ref. Englund et al., 2017). CBD has a broad range of pharmacological actions, including inhibiting the reuptake and hydrolysis of anandamide as well as multiple receptor mechanisms (ref. Bisogno et al., 2001; ref. Laprairie et al., 2015). The receptor mechanisms include negative allosteric modulation of CB1 receptor, partial agonist or inverse agonist action on CB2 receptor, and agonist action on transient receptor potential vanilloid 1 (TRPV1) and serotonin 5-HT_1A receptor (ref. Galaj and Xi, 2020), all of which are thought to lie behind CBD’s effects in reducing drug reward and addiction in preclinical studies (ref. Navarrete et al., 2021).

Broadly speaking, cannabis products can be divided into four categories: high-THC-concentration/sinsemilla (unpollinated flower), herbal (pollinated flower, containing seeds and with lower THC), hash/resin (compressed cannabis trichomes along with plant matter), and very high-THC cannabis concentrates (such as hash oil, wax dabs, butane hash oil, shatter, etc.) (ref. Potter et al., 2018). In the past two decades, dramatic increases in THC concentration in cannabis products have been reported across Europe (ref. Dujourdy and Besacier, 2017; ref. Freeman et al., 2020a, ref. b; ref. Potter et al., 2018; ref. Rømer Thomsen et al., 2019) and the U.S. (ref. ElSohly et al., 2016; ref. Smart et al., 2017). For example, a large study from the U.S. found a general increase in THC concentration in seized cannabis plant material from about 4% in 1995 to about 12 % in 2014 (ref. ElSohly et al., 2016), and a comprehensive study from France found a dramatic increase in THC concentration in seized cannabis resin from 10 % in 2009 to 23 % in 2016 (ref. Dujourdy and Besacier, 2017). In line with these findings, a recent study found an alarming 3-fold increase in THC concentration in seized cannabis resin in Denmark from 8% in 2000 to 25 % in 2017 (ref. Rømer Thomsen et al., 2019), which represents the highest concentration throughout Europe (ref. Freeman et al., 2019b). During the same period several studies indicate that CBD concentrations have remained stable or even decreased; in the studies from France and Denmark, CBD concentration remained stable at around 4% and 6% (ref. Dujourdy and Besacier, 2017; ref. Rømer Thomsen et al., 2019). This development is highly concerning, as emerging studies show that cannabis products with high THC levels and low CBD levels may have more detrimental effects on cognitive function and mental health among both young and adult users (ref. Englund et al., 2017; ref. Rømer Thomsen et al., 2017; ref. Wilson et al., 2019), including higher risk of cannabis-induced psychosis (ref. Di Forti et al., 2019; ref. Hjorthøj et al., 2019), impairments in learning and memory (ref. D’Souza et al., 2004; ref. Morgan et al., 2012; ref. Morrison et al., 2009), and poorer addiction outcomes (ref. Curran et al., 2018; ref. Freeman and Winstock, 2015; ref. Meier, 2017). Increasing THC levels have also been linked with increases in admission to CUD treatment in Europe (ref. Freeman et al., 2018).

Cannabis use and adverse outcomes among youth

Cannabis use is most prevalent in adolescents and emerging adults. For example, 18 % of youth aged 15–24 in Europe report using cannabis the past year compared to 7 % of 25–64 year old’s (ref. European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, 2019). In the U.S., about 25 % of adolescents report cannabis use by age 14, and recently rates of cannabis use have started to approximate adolescent alcohol use patterns with half of adolescents now using cannabis by age 18 (ref. CDC, 2016; ref. Johnston et al., 2018). Notably, the percentage of lifetime cannabis using adolescents who report frequent use (i.e., 20+ past-month occasions) are at the highest level in recent decades (14 %), reflecting a three-fold increase from the lowest reported levels in 1990–1991 (5.4 %) (ref. Terry-McElrath et al., 2020).

Rates of CUD peak during adolescence and emerging adulthood, and the global burden of disease related to cannabis use peaks in emerging adulthood (ages 20–24) (ref. Degenhardt et al., 2013). Individuals who initiate cannabis use during adolescence experience more adverse and long-lasting cannabis-related harms (ref. Silvers et al., 2019; ref. Volkow et al., 2014). About 30 % transition into CUD (ref. Hasin et al., 2015; ref. Volkow et al., 2014), and there is an increased risk of other substance use disorders (SUD) later in life (ref. Grant et al., 2010). Particularly among youth, frequent cannabis use is linked with a wide range of mental health disorders, health risks, and poor psychosocial outcomes, including low life satisfaction, school dropout, lower educational and occupational achievements, behavioral and legal problems, accidents/injuries, sexually transmitted infections, and psychotic disorders during adulthood (ref. Budney et al., 2007a; ref. Coffey and Patton, 2016; ref. Green et al., 2017, ref. 2010; ref. National Academies of Sciences, 2017).

The increased risk of adverse outcomes associated with frequent cannabis use among youth is related to the nature of the developing brain and the role of the endocannabinoid system in the neurodevelopmental maturation during adolescence (ref. Wilson et al., 2019). The brain continues to develop from the prenatal period through childhood and adolescence until the beginning/mid 20 s (ref. Gogtay et al., 2004). During these developmental periods, the brain is believed to be more vulnerable to the adverse effects of neurotoxins, such as regular exposure to cannabis. This means that the health impact and effects of cannabis, stemming from the increase in cannabis potency may pose unique risks for youth, because THC is likely to interfere with the neurodevelopmental processes influenced by the endocannabinoid system (ref. Wilson et al., 2019). Related to this, a study of regular cannabis users and matched controls (ref. Zalesky et al., 2012), found that cannabis use was associated with impaired axonal connectivity in the fimbria of the hippocampus (involved in learning and memory) and the precuneus (involved in self-awareness), and that early age of onset of regular use was associated with more severe microstructural white matter alteration. Additionally, a multisite longitudinal study in Europe found that cannabis use was associated with accelerated age-related cortical thinning between the ages of 14 and 19, predominantly in prefrontal regions with a high density of CB1 receptors (ref. Albaugh et al., 2021). Further, studies examining response inhibition have shown that adolescents engaged in cannabis use require more neural resources to perform at the same level as non-using adolescents (after 1 month abstinence) (ref. Tapert et al., 2007), or perform worse (ref. Behan et al., 2014). However, longitudinal studies are required to determine if these differences are directly related to THC exposure or whether they may (also) predispose individuals for developing CUD. In the only randomized, placebo-controlled study of cannabis administration in adolescents and adults to date (ref. Mokrysz et al., 2016), adolescents experienced heightened impairment of response inhibition and wanting more cannabis, alongside blunted subjective effects and memory impairment compared to adults.

Special considerations with psychosocial interventions for youth cannabis use

Preventing and intervening in the neurocognitive and health sequelae of early or frequent cannabis use is complex, and involves physical, psychological, medical, and cultural considerations. With regard to youth cannabis use, it is important to first consider the ways in which adolescents and emerging adults are developmentally distinct from adults in ways that have historically posed challenges to substance use prevention and treatment interventions in general (ref. Cousijn et al., 2018; ref. Feldstein Ewing et al., 2016b; ref. Silvers et al., 2019). One barrier to preventing the onset and escalation of adolescent cannabis use is that across cultural contexts, experimentation with substances such as alcohol and cannabis often falls in line with cultural expectations, and is perceived as socially acceptable by the youth (ref. Grønkjær et al., 2011; ref. Järvinen and Ravn, 2014; ref. Shedler and Block, 1990). However, the cultural and social context that influence an early onset of cannabis use may also have adverse neurocognitive implications for later brain and behavior function and ability (ref. Lisdahl et al., 2013).

As summarized in ref. Silvers et al. (2019), adolescence and emerging adulthood is a period with unique neurodevelopmental tasks that underscore major contrasts from adulthood: myriad pubertal changes, rapidly developing cognitive skills, an emergence of self-identity, and prominent changes in the social landscape. Accordingly, adolescent cognitive skills are also more directly tied and embedded in, and thus strongly impacted by, the socioemotional context and the broader ability to engage in self-regulatory cognitive strategies (e.g., reappraisal, emotional distancing) is only emerging and is markedly different from adults (ref. Silvers et al., 2012). Because the ability for abstract reasoning and the capacity for purposeful and planful behavior is also in a developmental neurocognitive phase, this may subsequently impact the ability to participate meaningfully in established empirically supported behavioral treatment paradigms for substance use that have historically been designed for adults and largely validated with adult samples (ref. Feldstein Ewing et al., 2016a). Exploring personal identity and a heightened sense of self also demarcates and differentiates the neurodevelopmental period of adolescence and emerging adulthood, and the formation of self-identity is itself contingent upon increased self-awareness and self-monitoring (ref. Pfeifer and Berkman, 2018). Unique to this developmental period, enhanced self-focus and social attunement with the environment may motivate youth to use substances to improve social standing, particularly within peer contexts (ref. Caouette and Feldstein Ewing, 2017; ref. Cousijn et al., 2018). In contrast to adults, adolescents may also be more likely to take risks in the presence of their peers such that risk taking in social contexts heightens the potential reward value (driving task fMRI study; (ref. Chein et al., 2011)). Of note, this penchant toward enhanced risk taking has now not only been examined as a potential risk factor, but also as a likely resilience factor, as adolescents also have an enhanced capacity to engage in prosocial “risks” when in peer contexts (ref. Andrews et al., 2021; ref. van de Groep et al., 2020). Peer influence is thus a powerful motivator for both risk taking and prosocial behaviors, highlighting the significance of addressing peer interactions in adolescent prevention and treatment interventions. These central facets of neurodevelopment in adolescence and emerging adulthood highlight key contextual distinctions between youth and adult cannabis users; the assumption that adult substance prevention and treatment models work equally well for youth is itself a barrier to developing novel approaches.

Another major challenge in addressing the significant public health issue that cannabis use presents for youth is that most youth who engage in frequent cannabis use do not seek or receive prevention and treatment interventions (ref. Kerridge et al., 2017; ref. Pedersen and Frederiksen, 2012; ref. Silvers et al., 2019), even after years of harmful use and related negative health sequalae; on average, cannabis users have more than 10 years of near-daily use and more than 6 attempts at quitting, prior to seeking and/or receiving treatment (ref. Budney, 2006). However, despite the high clinical importance, research on barriers to prevention and treatment interventions among youth with frequent cannabis use is surprisingly scarce, although some studies suggest that central barriers for seeking timely help involve social stigma, an overall desire to be self-reliant, believing intervention is not needed, or presuming that programs will be ineffective (ref. Corrigan, 2004; ref. Johnson et al., 2001; ref. van der Pol et al., 2013). Additional complicating factors involve the increasing ease of access to cannabis, particularly in regions with permissive cannabis legislation (e.g., recreational cannabis laws), which has been directly tied to increases in youth cannabis use (ref. Stormshak et al., 2019), perceiving cannabis use as harmless (ref. Demant and Ravn, 2010), and increasing social acceptance of cannabis use among peers (ref. Järvinen and Ravn, 2014; ref. Søgaard et al., 2016). Moreover, positive associations with cannabis (ref. Roditis and Halpern-Felsher, 2015) coupled with limited experience of, and anticipation for, negative consequences among adolescents and emerging adults, mean that this age group might not have a sensation of urgency to seek intervention either on the personal side (e.g., do not often wrestle with the feelings of ambivalence that often motivate adult substance users to seek treatment (ref. Feldstein Ewing et al., 2016a) or on the social side (e.g. do not feel a pressure by their peer group to change and/or modify cannabis use behavior (ref. Cousijn et al., 2018)). Related, once successfully engaged in prevention and treatment interventions for CUD, a significant challenge is retaining youth in the intervention (ref. Lees et al., 2021). Further, the recent ref. National Academies on Cannabis report (2017) also underscored the additional challenge of potential increase in other substance use (e.g., alcohol, vaping) (ref. National Academies of Sciences et al., 2017). Taken together, to reach and help youth with/at-risk of developing CUD at an earlier stage, there is a dire need to develop and test new prevention and treatment interventions that are articulated specifically for this important neurodevelopmental population.

Meeting the challenges in cannabis using youth: psychosocial interventions

Psychosocial interventions for cannabis use can be employed at different stages prior to and into the development of CUD and have been assessed both in non-treatment seeking youth and in youth enrolled in treatment. In particular, an important avenue for circumventing treatment barriers and reaching non-treatment seekers, and maximizing prevention and treatment impact, is via brief, early evidence-based interventions that are non-judgmental and affirming (ref. Feldstein Ewing et al., 2021, ref. 2016a; ref. Silvers et al., 2019). Motivational interviewing (MI; encompassing motivationally-based interventions including motivational enhancement therapy) is very well-suited to this end, because it is, by definition, non-judgmental, strength-based, affirming, empathic, and bolsters motivation for change (ref. Jensen et al., 2011), and has shown to be highly acceptable and feasible among young cannabis users (ref. Feldstein Ewing et al., 2013; ref. Jensen et al., 2011; ref. Martin et al., 2005; ref. Stern et al., 2007). Prior studies have found that 2 sessions of MI can successfully reach and engage non-treatment-seeking young cannabis users and reduce cannabis use and related symptoms (ref. Dupont et al., 2016; ref. Martin and Copeland, 2008; ref. McCambridge and Strang, 2004; ref. Walker et al., 2016). However, compared to adults, effects of MI have generally been less impactful among youth (ref. Hettema et al., 2005; ref. Jensen et al., 2011). Combining brief, evidence-based psychological interventions like MI with safe and effective pharmacological treatment may represent an important avenue for reaching and engaging non-treatment seeking youth, helping them reduce or quit cannabis use, and facilitate a healthier trajectory.

Multiple psychosocial interventions have been investigated for adolescents and emerging adults enrolled in CUD treatment, however these interventions have typically been developed for use in adult (and not youth) populations and not for cannabis as the primary problem drug (ref. Schettino et al., 2015; ref. Silvers et al., 2019). Several reviews provide in-depth details on the nature and efficacy of each intervention approach (ref. Gayes and Steele, 2014; ref. Jensen et al., 2011; ref. Steele et al., 2020; ref. Winters et al., 2021), but examples include that the combination of MI and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is associated with reduced cannabis use in adolescents with CUD. Typically, MI is employed over one or two sessions initially, in order to increase motivation to stop using cannabis and enhance ambivalence towards reducing use. This is followed by several sessions of CBT, with the aim of introducing coping skills that can be used in real-life settings and include devising plans for specific high-risk situations and developing problem solving skills. Recent studies have also shown that adding vouchers or monetary incentives for not using cannabis (contingency management) to weekly MI + CBT in youth has been associated with increased abstinence from cannabis (ref. Stanger et al., 2015) and increased treatment retention (ref. Pedersen et al., 2021) compared to weekly MI + CBT alone. Finally, some studies on multidimensional family therapy (MDFT), an approach that involves both the adolescent and the family member(s), have found that MDFT has comparable efficacy to CBT over 5–6 months of treatment, with evidence of increased treatment acceptability (ref. Hendriks et al., 2011), and that a 6-month programme has been associated with good retention as well as reduced cannabis dependence compared to individual psychotherapy (ref. Rigter et al., 2013). However, although these interventions have been associated with positive CUD outcomes, sustained abstinence is still only achieved in a minority of youth with CUD and treatment response tends to wane at follow-ups (ref. Gates et al., 2016). Furthermore, most psychosocial treatment interventions require multiple sessions over several weeks or months and require high motivation and patient stability. Combining brief evidence-based psychosocial treatment options with pharmacotherapy represents a potentially important avenue to reach young cannabis users and improve treatment outcomes, e.g., through a potential increase in short-term recovery, which may help increase motivation into longer-term psychosocial interventions.

Meeting the challenges in cannabis using youth: cannabinoids as a new treatment strategy

Despite great effort, there are no approved pharmacotherapies for CUD in youth or adults. A 2019 Cochrane review found that abstinence at the end of treatment was no more likely with active pharmacotherapy with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressants, mixed action antidepressants, anticonvulsants and mood stabilisers, buspirone and N-acetylcysteine compared to placebo (ref. Nielsen et al., 2019). Of note, one RCT among adolescents with CUD (n = 116) found that eight-week treatment with N-acetylcysteine doubled the odds of abstinence from cannabis during treatment compared to placebo (ref. Gray et al., 2012). However, a subsequent larger RCT in adults with CUD (n = 302) did not find evidence for benefits of 12-week N-acetylcysteine treatment on abstinence from cannabis compared to placebo (ref. Gray et al., 2017).

Of relevance, abstinence at the end of treatment may not be a developmentally-appropriate intervention goal in cannabis using youth (or adults), and recent expert consensus on clinical outcomes for CUD trials recommend that sustained abstinence should not be the primary outcome for all clinical trials of CUD (ref. Loflin et al., 2020). Thus, taking a harm reduction approach in treatment of CUD may weigh towards future studies on how to best attract youth with a frequent cannabis use/CUD to treatment that does not require abstinence, but targets reduction in use and in adverse consequences related to use.

The growing research and recognition of medical cannabis indicate the potential utility of cannabinoid-based-medicines as a strategy in treatment of CUD. Although it may sound initially counterintuitive, cannabinoids are receiving growing global interest as a safe and tolerated option for individuals with CUD. Because the divide between recreational and medical use of a drug may often overlap (such as in the case of opioids) (ref. Pacula et al., 2016; ref. Schlag et al., 2021), the use of cannabis in CUD treatment makes it imperative to address the many questions in order to be able to minimize potential harms of medical cannabis use. Generally speaking, an increasing number of countries have recognized potential medicinal uses of cannabinoid-based products and cannabinoids across Europe (ref. Abuhasira et al., 2018; ref. European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, 2018; ref. Kvamme et al., 2021), the U. S. (ref. National Conference of State Legislatures, 2020), Canada (ref. Fischer et al., 2015), and Australia (ref. Castle et al., 2019), providing greater flexibility for prescribers and facilitating research which has been difficult to conduct due to restrictions laid down on cannabinoid medicinal products (ref. Braithwaite et al., 2019; ref. Nutt et al., 2013; ref. Shover and Humphreys, 2019). For example, there has been an increase in synthetic cannabinoid formulations such as nabilone (THC) licensed for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, as well as nabiximols (THC + CBD) for the treatment of spasticity and multiple sclerosis, and Epidiolex (CBD) for the treatment of severe treatment resistant epilepsy in children (ref. Freeman et al., 2019c).

So far, all studies on use of cannabinoids in treatment of CUD have been conducted in adults, while studies in youth are lacking. In the next sections, we review evidence from studies examining the effects of cannabinoids on cannabis use pathology among adult non-treatment seekers and patients in treatment and discuss the relevance of these findings for youth. Studies were found by searching PubMed, Embase, and PsycInfo databases with the terms “cannabis use disorder” or “cannabis dependence” or “cannabis treatment” combined with “cannabinoid” or “tetrahydrocannabinol” or “THC” or “cannabidiol” or “CBD” or “fatty acid amide hydrolase inhibitor” or “FAAH inhibitor”; and by checking reference lists of existing studies and reviews up to June 1st 2021. We did not include qualitative studies and case studies.

THC based cannabinoid agonist treatment strategies

THC is a partial agonist at CB1 and CB2 receptors (ref. Howlett et al., 2002). Partial agonist action at CB1 receptor is responsible for the psychotropic effects associated with cannabis use as well as potentially therapeutic effects such as pain- and appetite-modulating actions. These clinical effects are mediated through CB1 receptor activation via inhibition of nociception, activation of reward pathways and regulation of mood, memory, and cognition (ref. Zagzoog et al., 2020). Parallel effects of CB2 receptor activation include inhibition of the inflammatory response in cells of the immune system (ref. Howlett et al., 2002). A number of studies have examined the effect of dronabinol or nabilone (synthetic THC) or nabiximols (THC and CBD at 1:1 ratio) on CUD symptoms in adults (Table 1). In general, THC based medicines are aimed at ameliorating cannabis withdrawal symptoms and craving when patients with CUD cease or reduce their use of illicit cannabis, because such compounds directly substitute the cannabis THC content. This treatment principle is similar to opioid and nicotine replacement therapy and is thought to provide a safer alternative that better facilitates participation in psychosocial and other treatment interventions (ref. Lintzeris et al., 2019). By this mechanism, THC based cannabinoid agonist medicines may help decrease the risk of relapse due to withdrawal symptoms (ref. Werneck et al., 2018).

Several laboratory studies have shown that dronabinol can reduce withdrawal symptoms in adult non-treatment seeking daily cannabis users (cannabis withdrawal symptoms typically include irritability, aggression, anxiety, insomnia, weight loss, restlessness, depressed mood, abdominal pain, tremors, sweating, and headache (ref. Hesse and Thylstrup, 2013; ref. Nielsen et al., 2020)). In an inpatient setting (N = 11 enrolled, 7 completed) (ref. Haney et al., 2004), 10 mg of dronabinol 5 times/day decreased withdrawal symptoms and craving and produced no intoxication, compared to placebo. In an outpatient setting (N = 22 enrolled, 8 completed) (ref. Budney et al., 2007b), dronabinol (10 mg or 30 mg 3 times/day) dose-dependently decreased withdrawal symptoms compared to placebo, with greater reductions following the high dose (30 mg 3 times/day). However, the high dose produced symptoms of cannabis intoxication and drug effects (euphoria and liking) compared to placebo. ref. Vandrey et al. (2013) replicated the ability of dronabinol to dose-dependently decrease withdrawal symptoms (30, 60, or 120 mg/day) in adult, daily cannabis users (N = 25 enrolled, 13 completed). There was a significant effect of the high dose on dry mouth, rapid heart rate and flushing, and decrements in a minority of the cognitive performance measures. There is also some evidence that dronabinol (60 mg/day) combined with an alpha2-adrenergic receptor agonist, lofexidine (2.4 mg/day), produces synergistic effects for decreasing withdrawal symptoms, craving and relapse in adult non-treatment seeking daily cannabis users (N = 8 enrolled, completed not reported) (ref. Haney et al., 2008).

A randomized controlled trial (RCT) (ref. Levin et al., 2011) with cannabis dependent adults (N = 156 randomized, 99 completed) compared dronabinol (40 mg/day) with placebo over 12 weeks with concomitant weekly MI. Compared to placebo, dronabinol improved treatment retention and reduced withdrawal symptoms, but not cannabis use and 2-week abstinence. An RCT (ref. Levin et al., 2016) with cannabis dependent adults (N = 122 randomized, 67 completed) compared a higher dose of concurrent dronabinol (60 mg/day) and lofexidine (1.8 mg/day) with placebo over 11 weeks with concomitant weekly MI, and found no effect of drug treatment on 3-week abstinence, withdrawal symptoms, or treatment retention.

A laboratory study of nabilone (ref. Haney et al., 2013), which has a higher bioavailability than dronabinol, found that compared to placebo, 6 and 8 mg nabilone/day decreased withdrawal symptoms and relapse behavior in adult non-treatment seeking daily cannabis users (N = 12 enrolled, 11 completed). Nabilone did not increase ratings of “liking” or “desire to take again” compared to placebo, but 8 mg/day worsened cognitive task performance. A pilot RCT (ref. Hill et al., 2017) comparing placebo and nabilone (2 mg/day) over 10 weeks in adults with cannabis dependence (N = 18 randomized, 12 completed), found that nabilone was safe and tolerated, but had no effect on cannabis use compared to placebo.

So far, findings from studies examining nabiximols’ (THC and CBD) efficacy on cannabis use pathology in adults are more mixed. A proof of concept study (ref. Trigo et al., 2016) of fixed and self-titrated nabiximols use (up to 108 mg THC and 100 mg CBD) in non-treatment seeking cannabis dependent adults (N = 16 randomized, 9 completed), showed that high fixed doses were well tolerated and reduced withdrawal symptoms, but not craving, compared to placebo (ref. Trigo et al., 2016). Self-titrated doses were lower and had limited efficacy compared to high fixed doses. A two-site inpatient RCT in treatment-seeking adult patients with CUD (N = 51 randomized, 19 completed) receiving 6 days of nabiximols (max 86.4 mg THC and 80 mg CBD/day) or placebo with concomitant MI/CBT during a 9-day admission, found that nabiximols reduced withdrawal and improved treatment retention (by day 6, not by day 9), but did not reduce cannabis use, dependence or cannabis-related problems compared to placebo (ref. Allsop et al., 2014). Nabiximols was not associated with greater intoxication or adverse events. A pilot, outpatient RCT (ref. Trigo et al., 2018) in treatment seeking cannabis dependent adults (N = 40 randomized, 27 completed) receiving 12-week treatment with self-titrated nabiximols use (up to 113.4 mg THC and 105 mg CBD) or placebo, concurrent with weekly MI and CBT, found that nabiximols was well tolerated with no serious adverse events, but had no effect on withdrawal symptoms, cannabis use and abstinence, compared to placebo. In contrast, a multi-site, outpatient RCT (ref. Lintzeris et al., 2019) in cannabis dependent adults (N = 137 randomized, 60 completed) receiving 12-week treatment with self-titrated nabiximols use (up to 86.4 mg THC and 80 mg CBD) or placebo, concurrent with 6 sessions of CBT, found that nabiximols was well tolerated with few adverse events, had no effect on withdrawal symptoms, craving and cannabis-related problems, but reduced cannabis use during the trial, compared with placebo. The reduction in cannabis use in the nabiximols group, compared to placebo, was maintained 12 weeks after treatment (ref. Lintzeris et al., 2020).

To summarize, the evidence from placebo-controlled laboratory studies suggests that treatment with dronabinol (ranging from 30 to 120 mg/day) dose-dependently decrease withdrawal symptoms, with some evidence that higher doses produce cannabis intoxication and drug liking. Evidence from large placebo-controlled RCTs in cannabis dependent adults (N > 100 enrolled) combining dronabinol with MI over 11–12 weeks partly supports this: 40 mg/day reduced withdrawal symptoms and improved treatment retention, but not cannabis use and abstinence (ref. Levin et al., 2011), but a higher dose, 60 mg/day combined with lofexidine (1.8 mg/day) had no effect on neither withdrawal symptoms nor abstinence or treatment retention (ref. Levin et al., 2016). Nabilone has been less examined, but the evidence from placebo-controlled studies is similar: a laboratory study suggests that 6 or 8 mg/day reduces withdrawal symptoms (without increasing drug liking), and a small RCT (2 mg nabilone/day over 10 weeks) in cannabis dependent adults found no effect on cannabis use. Evidence from placebo-controlled studies of nabiximols combined with MI and CBT is more mixed: out of the three conducted RCTs in cannabis dependent adults, self-titrated nabiximols reduced withdrawal symptoms, but had no effect on cannabis use, dependence or cannabis-related problems in one study (max 86.4 mg THC and 80 mg CBD/day during 9-day admission) (ref. Allsop et al., 2014); had no effect on neither withdrawal symptoms nor cannabis use or abstinence in another study with a higher dose (max 113.4 mg THC and 105 mg CBD during 12 weeks) (ref. Trigo et al., 2018); and had no effect on withdrawal symptoms, craving and cannabis-realted problems, but reduced cannabis use in a large study (N > 100; max 86.4 mg THC and 80 mg CBD during 12 weeks) (ref. Lintzeris et al., 2019).

Non-THC based cannabinoid treatment strategies

Recently, studies have also examined the effect of FAAH inhibitors or CBD in adults with CUD (Table 1).

FAAH forms a part of the endocannabinoid system by breaking down endocannabinoids such as anandamide. By inhibiting this breakdown process, FAAH inhibitors increase endocannabinoid levels, which may represent a therapeutic mechanism for the treatment of CUD. Preclinical research has shown that FAAH inhibitors can attenuate cannabis withdrawal symptoms in THC-dependent mice (ref. Schlosburg et al., 2009). So far, only one RCT has examined the effects of FAAH inhibitor treatment on cannabis use and cannabis pathology in humans (ref. D’Souza et al., 2019). In a double-blind, place-controlled, parallel group phase 2a trial in adults with cannabis dependence (N = 70 randomized, 58 completed), participants received 4 mg daily PF-04457845 (N = 46) or placebo (N = 24) during 4 weeks. Relative to placebo, treatment with PF-04457845 reduced symptoms of cannabis withdrawal, and self-reported cannabis use at 4 weeks, which was confirmed by lower urinary THC-COOH concentrations. Further, there was no difference between reported adverse events and retention in the two groups.

A novel strategy with promising findings is also underway in preclinical and clinical studies of CBD (ref. Batalla et al., 2019; ref. Bonaccorso et al., 2019; ref. Russo, 2011). For example, preclinical studies show that CBD attenuates drug-seeking behavior (ref. Bonaccorso et al., 2019; ref. Leaver et al., 2009), and a study found that CBD reversed the reinforcing effects of cannabis in youth (ref. Morgan et al., 2010), supporting CUD treatment potential. The multiple receptor mechanisms of CBD outlined earlier are believed to form the neurobiological underpinnings of the effects of CBD on the regulation of reinforcing, motivational and withdrawal-related effects as documented in preclinical and clinical studies (ref. Navarrete et al., 2021). It is still not known precisely how CBD interacts with the dopaminergic system to modify the motivational effects of psychoactive drugs, but available data suggest a role for CBD in regulating the activity of the mesolimbic dopaminergic system (ref. Navarrete et al., 2021). This role has been emphasized by the localization of cannabinoid receptors in the mesolimbic circuit orchestrating the synthesis and release of dopamine (ref. Manzanares et al., 2018). Apart from the interaction with the endocannabinoid system through alteration of endocannabinoid signaling, the effect of CBD on drug addiction has been shown to involve modest affinity agonist action at 5-HT_1A receptors (ref. Russo et al., 2005).

So far, two studies have examined the effects of CBD in adult cannabis users (ref. Freeman et al., 2020b; ref. Solowij et al., 2018). A pragmatic open-label clinical trial evaluated the effect of 10 weeks of 200 mg daily CBD administration on psychological symptoms and cognition in adults with frequent cannabis use (N = 20 enrolled), while participants continued cannabis use (ref. Solowij et al., 2018). Compared with baseline, participants reported fewer depressive and psychotic symptoms, but more state anxiety symptoms after CBD treatment, and demonstrated improvement in attentional switching, verbal learning, and memory. CBD was well tolerated with no reported side effects, in line with a recent meta-analysis of CBD clinical trials reflecting that CBD tends to be very well-tolerated with few serious adverse effects (e.g. diarrhea) (ref. Chesney et al., 2020). Participants retrospectively reported reduced euphoria when smoking cannabis, in line with previous studies showing that CBD reverses the reinforcing effects of cannabis in youth (ref. Morgan et al., 2010). The study provided the first evidence that prolonged CBD treatment may improve psychological symptoms and cognitive function in frequent users, with greater benefits in dependent than in nondependent cannabis users. However, the study lacked a placebo control and was not designed to examine effects on cannabis use.

Recently, Freeman and colleagues (ref. Freeman et al., 2020b) offered the first empirical data supporting that a treatment package comprised of CBD + MI was able to engage non-treatment seeking adults with CUD and reduce post-treatment cannabis use. In a phase 2a dose-finding RCT, they found that synthetic CBD over a 4-week treatment period outperformed placebo (N = 23) at daily doses of 400 mg (N = 24) or 800 mg (N = 23) (but not 200 mg (N = 12); eliminated at interim analysis due to inefficacy) in reducing biological and self-report metrics of cannabis use among a sample of non-treatment seeking adults with CUD, who wanted to quit cannabis use (N = 82 randomized, 77 completed) (ref. Freeman et al., 2020b). Reductions in use were maintained up to 24 weeks following treatment with 400 mg CBD. Results on secondary outcomes were mixed. However, there was some evidence for CBD reducing cigarette use, cannabis withdrawal symptoms, and anxiety. By contrast, there was no evidence for changes in alcohol use, and there was evidence for a decrease in sleep quality following CBD treatment. Importantly, in terms of potential disruption in functioning, use of CBD was not associated with more adverse events than placebo – in line with the open-label trial (ref. Solowij et al., 2018). Furthermore, the study showed impressive retention rates with 94 % retention throughout the study period.

To summarize, very few studies have examined the effect of non-THC based cannabinoid treatment strategies on CUD to date, but evidence from the first studies is promising. In the first placebo-controlled RCT in adults with cannabis dependence, FAAH inhibitors (4 mg/day over 4 weeks) reduced withdrawal symptoms and cannabis use compared to placebo, with no difference in adverse outcomes between groups. A pragmatic open label trial of CBD (200 mg/day over 10 weeks) in adults who continued their frequent cannabis use found improvements in depressive and psychotic symptoms, attention, learning and memory, and reduced euphoria when smoking cannabis. In the first placebo-controlled RCT of CBD in adults with cannabis dependence, CBD (400 or 800 mg/day over 4 weeks concomitant with MI) reduced cannabis use, with no difference in adverse outcomes between groups. Larger trials are needed to provide more precise estimates of efficacy for these novel treatment strategies.

Relevance of cannabinoid treatment for youth

As reviewed in Section 5.1, evidence from randomized placebo-controlled studies suggests that treatment with synthetic THC (dronabinol, nabilone) decreases withdrawal symptoms, but not cannabis use, in adults with daily cannabis use or CUD. Further, the same studies suggest that higher doses of THC may increase cannabis intoxication and liking, while the evidence regarding THC combined with CBD (nabiximols) is more mixed. The lack of effect on cannabis use and abstinence in adult studies with synthetic THC conducted so far, including studies where THC is administered concomitantly with MI/CBT up to 12 weeks, suggests that the efficacy of synthetic THC as a treatment among youth with CUD should not be tested as a stand-alone pharmacological treatment. The relatively consistent effect on withdrawal symptoms may suggest potential for combining dronabinol or nabilone with other medications, however, this should be weighed against potential negative outcomes associated with administering THC in youth samples.

More specifically, the evidence from laboratory studies suggests that higher doses of THC may increase cannabis intoxication and drug liking, which naturally raises concern, as these effects may pose a risk for relapse in patients who have stopped using cannabis and may be even more problematic in patients that aim to reduce, but not stop, using cannabis. In general, administering THC as treatment for CUD carries an element of clinical and ethical concern due to the emerging evidence suggesting that cannabis products with high levels of THC have detrimental effects on mental health and cognitive function among adult and youth users (ref. Englund et al., 2017; ref. Rømer Thomsen et al., 2017; ref. Wilson et al., 2019). These concerns are very relevant considering the high rates of psychiatric co-morbidity and negative neurocognitive impact in youth and adults with CUD (ref. Hasin, 2018; ref. Volkow et al., 2014). Furthermore, the concerns are particularly pertinent with adolescents and emerging adults, as the developing brain is believed to be more susceptible to the adverse effects of cannabis exposure, and THC may interfere with neurodevelopmental processes influenced by the endocannabinoid system (ref. Wilson et al., 2019). The majority of studies reviewed in Section 5.1 did not examine potential effects on cognitive function. However, in the studies that included cognitive assessment, findings suggest that THC-containing cannabinoid treatment decrease cognitive performance: one study found that 8 mg/day of nabilone (but not 6 mg/day) worsened psychomotor task performance (ref. Haney et al., 2013), and another found that dronabinol worsened psychomotor task performance and working memory (ref. Vandrey et al., 2013). While studies of nabiximols reported no differences in adverse events between treatment and placebo groups (ref. Allsop et al., 2011; ref. Lintzeris et al., 2019; ref. Trigo et al., 2016, ref. 2018), some studies found adverse events related to dronabinol, such as dry mouth, rapid hear, flushing and hypotension (ref. Levin et al., 2016; ref. Vandrey et al., 2013). In studies that reported serious adverse events, these were deemed not study related (ref. Levin et al., 2011, ref. 2016). A final point that is relevant to consider is that THC may interfere with daily functioning, because of its cognitive impairing effects. For example, dronabinol has been found to impair driving performance in a dose-dependent manner (ref. Bosker et al., 2012), which has implications for potential risk of road accidents attributable to medicinal use of THC in treatment of CUD.

As reviewed in Section 5.2, the effect of FAAH inhibitors and CBD on CUD has been much less studied, but evidence from the first two placebo-controlled RCTs in adults with cannabis dependence suggests that FAAH inhibitors can reduce withdrawal symptoms and cannabis use, and that CBD can reduce cannabis use. Furthermore, there were no differences between control groups and groups receiving FAAH inhibitors or CBD regarding adverse outcomes (ref. D’Souza et al., 2019; ref. Freeman et al., 2020b; ref. Solowij et al., 2018).

A key concern about administering pharmacotherapies to youth is their safety. In the only trial to date, the FAAH inhibitor PF-04457845 was administered to male adults aged 18–55. The trial did not include females of childbearing potential due to the previous lack of safety and toxicity data on PF-04457845. Now that these data are available, a subsequent phase 2b trial is being conducted in males and females aged 18–60 (D’Souza, 2021). Due to a lack of safety or toxicity data in younger people, the potential of PF-04457845 in treating youth CUD is currently unclear. There is also limited data on the safety of THC administration in youth, with only one study to date administering THC to adolescent volunteers (ref. Mokrysz et al., 2016), as well as the already mentioned concerns about the impact on the developing brain. While the safety and efficacy of CBD for treating CUD in youth is yet to be established, the potential safety of administering CBD is supported by several trials of CBD as a treatment for severe treatment-resistant epilepsy in children (ref. Devinsky et al., 2017, ref. 2018; ref. Thiele et al., 2018). Furthermore, an emerging literature suggests that CBD contains opposing neural, cognitive, and behavioral effects that interact with, and may counteract, some of the harmful effects of THC on cognitive functions, anxiety, and psychotic symptoms (ref. Blessing et al., 2015; ref. Bonaccorso et al., 2019; ref. Englund et al., 2017; ref. Freeman et al., 2019a; ref. Gunasekera et al., 2020; ref. Iseger and Bossong, 2015; ref. Osborne et al., 2017; ref. Rømer Thomsen et al., 2017). Some studies also point to a greater addiction potential in products with high levels of THC and low levels of CBD (ref. Curran et al., 2018; ref. Freeman and Winstock, 2015; ref. Meier, 2017; ref. Morgan et al., 2010). These effects are mirrored in functional imaging studies, which have revealed opposing acute effects of THC and CBD in areas pivotal to the examined cognitive processes including amygdala (processing of emotional information); striatum, hippocampus, and prefrontal cortex (processing of salience); and auditory and visual cortex (processing of auditory and visual information (ref. Bhattacharyya et al., 2010; ref. Borgwardt et al., 2008; ref. Fusar-Poli et al., 2009; ref. Winton-Brown et al., 2011). Taken together, these findings point to a safer profile of CBD compared to THC.

A potential benefit of cannabinoid treatment in general is that it may be more acceptable than traditional treatment (and other medications) among cannabis using youth and adults, especially non-treatment seekers. In the only placebo-controlled RCT conducted with CBD so far, retention rates were very high: out of 82 randomized individuals with CUD, only 5 participants did not complete treatment (ref. Freeman et al., 2020b), and in the only placebo-controlled RCT of FAAH inhibitors, 17 % dropped out of placebo and active treatment groups (ref. D’Souza et al., 2019). Overall, drop-out rates were higher and more mixed in studies on THC-based cannabinoid treatment, see also Table 1. As such, cannabinoid medication – particularly non-THC based – may potentially help address the problem of low treatment uptake in youth.

Recommendations for future studies

This is an extremely exciting time in the domain of adolescent and emerging adult prevention and intervention work for cannabis use and related CUD. At present, we are coming out from an era with limited prevention and treatment intervention options. To that end, the past few decades have been demarcated by addiction paradigms and related prevention and intervention approaches that were solely developed for and examined with adults. On that background, it is highly promising that the field is increasingly recognizing adolescence and emerging adulthood as a distinct neurodevelopmental period with its own unique needs and challenges that are also mirrored in the needs and challenges related to cannabis use (ref. Feldstein Ewing et al., 2018; ref. Giedd, 2015).

This review represents a comprehensive overview of how exciting advances in the domain of emergent cannabinoid treatment strategies may open a critical and important window for the abatement of youths’ struggles with cannabis. With the increase in cannabis use observed throughout the pandemic (ref. Cousijn et al., 2021), these steps could not be more timely.

Examinations of cannabinoids as treatment strategies for CUD have so far been restricted to adult populations. These studies have yielded promising findings regarding FAAH inhibitors and CBD, but large efficacy trials are still needed to replicate the first findings. The optimal duration of treatment with cannabinoid substitution treatment has also not yet been established and needs to be systematically investigated together with risk of relapse after cannabinoid treatment has been discontinued. This is of particular importance, because of the high price of some of the cannabinoid agonist compounds recently released to the market.

With no studies to date having examined the potential of cannabinoid treatment in youth with CUD, the next critical steps include examining the impact of these novel intervention approaches (e.g., CBD+/− psychosocial approaches) in youth samples, in order to examine potential effects and side effects, and determine which elements in the approach are driving specific changes in youth behavior and brain. To this end, translational approaches integrating examinations with behavioral, neurocognitive, and neuroimaging (MRI/fMRI) can be particularly useful in disaggregating potential impact and neural- as well as behavioral- mechanisms of change in this important population (ref. Ray and Grodin, 2021; ref. Ray et al., 2021). Furthermore, examinations of potential gender differences are needed – both in youth and adult samples. Fewer females use cannabis, but cannabis use is linked to more health problems in young females compared to males (ref. Girgis et al., 2020; ref. Hesse et al., 2020). However, research in females and potential gender differences is lacking in cannabis research in general (ref. Del Boca, 2016; ref. Hamilton and Monaghan, 2019; ref. Lees et al., 2021), including research on cannabinoid treatment, where previous studies have either examined 100 % males or mainly males. So far, no studies have examined potential gender differences in effects of cannabinoid treatment (see Table 1).

Together, this work represents critical next steps in the important pathway toward improving the lives of young people struggling with CUD. In the longer run, once tolerability and safety of cannabinoid treatment strategies have been established in youth, more specific target groups and treatment strategies could be further explored. For example, the therapeutic effects of pharmacological treatment with CBD (i.e., antipsychotic, anxiolytic) have the potential to guide the definition of CUD subgroups that might in particular benefit from this treatment strategy. Since THC-based compounds seem rather efficient in reducing withdrawal symptoms, another approach might be to examine the efficacy of administering both THC and CBD in the beginning of treatment and then gradually phase out to end with CBD monotherapy. However, due to the discussed risks and concerns associated with THC administration, this approach requires careful ethical and clinical considerations.

References

1. R Abuhasira, L Shbiro, Y Landschaft. Medical use of cannabis and cannabinoids containing products – Regulations in Europe and North America.. Eur. J. Intern. Med, 2018. [PubMed]
2. MD Albaugh, J Ottino-Gonzalez, A Sidwell, C Lepage, A Juliano, MM Owens, B Chaarani, P Spechler, N Fontaine, P Rioux, L Lewis, S Jeon, A Evans, D D’Souza, R Radhakrishnan, T Banaschewski, ALW Bokde, EB Quinlan, P Conrod, S Desrivières, H Flor, A Grigis, P Gowland, A Heinz, B Ittermann, JL Martinot, ML Paillère Martinot, F Nees, D Papadopoulos Orfanos, T Paus, L Poustka, S Millenet, JH Fröhner, MN Smolka, H Walter, R Whelan, G Schumann, A Potter, H Garavan. Association of cannabis use during adolescence with neurodevelopment.. Jama Psychiatry, 2021
3. DJ Allsop, MM Norberg, J Copeland, S Fu, AJ Budney. The Cannabis Withdrawal Scale development: patterns and predictors of cannabis withdrawal and distress.. Drug Alcohol Depend., 2011. [PubMed]
4. DJ Allsop, J Copeland, N Lintzeris, AJ Dunlop, M Montebello, C Sadler, GR Rivas, RM Holland, P Muhleisen, MM Norberg, J Booth, IS McGregor. Nabiximols as an agonist replacement therapy during cannabis withdrawal: a randomized clinical trial.. Jama Psychiatry, 2014. [PubMed]
5. American Psychiatric Association, D.-, 2013. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM-5, 5 ed. American Psyhiatric Association, Washington DC.
6. JL Andrews, SP Ahmed, SJ Blakemore. Navigating the social environment in adolescence: the role of social brain development.. Biol. Psychiatry, 2021. [PubMed]
7. A Batalla, H Janssen, SS Gangadin, MG Bossong. The potential of cannabidiol as a treatment for psychosis and addiction: who benefits most? A systematic review.. J. Clin. Med, 2019
8. B Behan, CG Connolly, S Datwani, M Doucet, J Ivanovic, R Morioka, A Stone, R Watts, B Smyth, H Garavan. Response inhibition and elevated parietal-cerebellar correlations in chronic adolescent cannabis users.. Neuropharmacology, 2014. [PubMed]
9. S Bhattacharyya, PD Morrison, P Fusar-Poli, R Martin-Santos, S Borgwardt, T Winton-Brown, C Nosarti, OC CM, M Seal, P Allen, MA Mehta, JM Stone, N Tunstall, V Giampietro, S Kapur, RM Murray, AW Zuardi, JA Crippa, Z Atakan, PK McGuire. Opposite effects of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol on human brain function and psychopathology.. Neuropsychopharmacology, 2010. [PubMed]
10. T Bisogno, L Hanuš, L De Petrocellis, S Tchilibon, DE Ponde, I Brandi, AS Moriello, JB Davis, R Mechoulam, V Di Marzo. Molecular targets for cannabidiol and its synthetic analogues: effect on vanilloid VR1 receptors and on the cellular uptake and enzymatic hydrolysis of anandamide.. Br. J. Pharmacol, 2001. [PubMed]
11. EM Blessing, MM Steenkamp, J Manzanares, CR Marmar. Cannabidiol as a potential treatment for anxiety disorders.. Neurotherapeutics, 2015. [PubMed]
12. S Bonaccorso, A Ricciardi, C Zangani, S Chiappini, F Schifano. Cannabidiol (CBD) use in psychiatric disorders: a systematic review.. Neurotoxicology, 2019. [PubMed]
13. SJ Borgwardt, P Allen, S Bhattacharyya, P Fusar-Poli, JA Crippa, ML Seal, V Fraccaro, Z Atakan, R Martin-Santos, C O’Carroll, K Rubia, PK McGuire. Neural basis of Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol: effects during response inhibition.. Biol. Psychiatry, 2008. [PubMed]
14. WM Bosker, KP Kuypers, EL Theunissen, A Surinx, RJ Blankespoor, G Skopp, WK Jeffery, HC Walls, CJ van Leeuwen, JG Ramaekers. Medicinal Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (dronabinol) impairs on-the-road driving performance of occasional and heavy cannabis users but is not detected in S tandard F ield S obriety T ests.. Addiction, 2012. [PubMed]
15. I Braithwaite, G Newton-Howes, K Oldfield, A Semprini. Cannabis-based medicinal products and the role of the doctor: should we be cautious or cautiously optimistic?. N. Z. Med. J, 2019
16. AJ Budney. Are specific dependence criteria necessary for different substances: how can research on cannabis inform this issue?. Addiction, 2006. [PubMed]
17. AJ Budney, R Roffman, RS Stephens, D Walker. Marijuana dependence and its treatment.. Addict. Sci. Clin. Pract, 2007a. [PubMed]
18. AJ Budney, RG Vandrey, JR Hughes, BA Moore, B Bahrenburg. Oral delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol suppresses cannabis withdrawal symptoms.. Drug Alcohol Depend., 2007b. [PubMed]
19. JD Caouette, SW Feldstein Ewing. Four mechanistic models of peer influence on adolescent cannabis use.. Curr. Addict. Rep, 2017. [PubMed]
20. DJ Castle, N Strauss, A Norman, Y Bonomo. Medical marijuana: the Australian experience.. Missouri Med., 2019. [PubMed]
21. CDC, 2016. Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Atlanta, GA.
22. J Chein, D Albert, L O’Brien, K Uckert, L Steinberg. Peers increase adolescent risk taking by enhancing activity in the brain’s reward circuitry.. Dev. Sci, 2011. [PubMed]
23. E Chesney, D Oliver, A Green, S Sovi, J Wilson, A Englund, TP Freeman, P McGuire. Adverse effects of cannabidiol: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.. Neuropsychopharmacology, 2020. [PubMed]
24. C Coffey, GC Patton. Cannabis use in adolescence and young adulthood: a review of findings from the victorian adolescent health cohort study.. Can. J. Psychiatry, 2016. [PubMed]
25. P Corrigan. How stigma interferes with mental health care.. Am. Psychol, 2004. [PubMed]
26. J Cousijn, M Luijten, SW Feldstein Ewing. Adolescent resilience to addiction: a social plasticity hypothesis.. Lancet Child Adolesc. Health, 2018. [PubMed]
27. J Cousijn, L Kuhns, H Larsen, E Kroon. For better or for worse? A pre-post exploration of the impact of the COVID-19 lockdown on cannabis users.. Addiction, 2021. [PubMed]
28. HV Curran, C Hindocha, CJ Morgan, N Shaban, RK Das, TP Freeman. Which biological and self-report measures of cannabis use predict cannabis dependency and acute psychotic-like effects?. Psychol. Med, 2018
29. DC D’Souza. Identification No. NCT03386487. Fatty Acid Amide Hydrolase (FAAH) Inhibitor Treatment of Cannabis Use Disorder (CUD) (FAAH-I MULTI).
30. DC D’Souza, E Perry, L MacDougall, Y Ammerman, T Cooper, YT Wu, G Braley, R Gueorguieva, JH Krystal. The psychotomimetic effects of intravenous delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in healthy individuals: implications for psychosis.. Neuropsychopharmacology, 2004. [PubMed]
31. DC D’Souza, JA Cortes-Briones, M Ranganathan, H Thurnauer, G Creatura, T Surti, B Planeta, A Neumeister, B Pittman, MD Normandin. Rapid changes in cannabinoid 1 receptor availability in cannabis-dependent male subjects after abstinence from cannabis.. Biol. Psychiatry Cogn. Neurosci. Neuroimaging, 2016
32. DC D’Souza, J Cortes-Briones, G Creatura, G Bluez, H Thurnauer, E Deaso, K Bielen, T Surti, R Radhakrishnan, A Gupta, S Gupta, J Cahill, MA Sherif, A Makriyannis, PT Morgan, M Ranganathan, PD Skosnik. Efficacy and safety of a fatty acid amide hydrolase inhibitor (PF-04457845) in the treatment of cannabis withdrawal and dependence in men: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group, phase 2a single-site randomised controlled trial.. Lancet Psychiatry, 2019. [PubMed]
33. L Degenhardt, AJ Ferrari, B Calabria, WD Hall, RE Norman, J McGrath, AD Flaxman, RE Engell, GD Freedman, HA Whiteford, T Vos. The global epidemiology and contribution of cannabis use and dependence to the global burden of disease: results from the GBD 2010 study.. PLoS One, 2013. [PubMed]
34. FK Del Boca. Addressing sex and gender inequities in scientific research and publishing.. Addiction, 2016. [PubMed]
35. J Demant, S Ravn. Identifying drug risk perceptions in Danish youths: ranking exercises in focus groups.. Drugs Educ. Prev. Policy, 2010
36. O Devinsky, JH Cross, L Laux, E Marsh, I Miller, R Nabbout, IE Scheffer, EA Thiele, S Wright. Trial of cannabidiol for drug-resistant seizures in the Dravet syndrome.. N. Engl. J. Med, 2017. [PubMed]
37. O Devinsky, AD Patel, JH Cross, V Villanueva, EC Wirrell, M Privitera, SM Greenwood, C Roberts, D Checketts, KE VanLandingham. Effect of cannabidiol on drop seizures in the Lennox–Gastaut syndrome.. N. Engl. J. Med, 2018. [PubMed]
38. M Di Forti, D Quattrone, TP Freeman, G Tripoli, C Gayer-Anderson, H Quigley. The contribution of cannabis use to variation in the incidence of psychotic disorder across Europe (EU-GEI): a multicentre case-control study.. Lancet Psychiatry, 2019. [PubMed]
39. L Dujourdy, F Besacier. A study of cannabis potency in France over a 25 years period (1992–2016).. Forensic Sci. Int, 2017. [PubMed]
40. HB Dupont, MJ Candel, CD Kaplan, D van de Mheen, NK de Vries. Assessing the efficacy of MOTI-4 for reducing the use of cannabis among youth in the Netherlands: a randomized controlled trial.. J. Subst. Abuse Treat, 2016. [PubMed]
41. MA ElSohly, Z Mehmedic, S Foster, C Gon, S Chandra, JC Church. Changes in cannabis potency over the last 2 decades (1995–2014): analysis of current data in the United States.. Biol. Psychiatry, 2016. [PubMed]
42. A Englund, TP Freeman, RM Murray, P McGuire. Can we make cannabis safer?. Lancet Psychiatry, 2017. [PubMed]
43. European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, 2018. Medical Use of Cannabis and Cannabinoids: Questions and Answers for Policymaking. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
44. European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, 2019. European Drug Report 2019: Trends and Developments.
45. SW Feldstein Ewing, AD McEachern, U Yezhuvath, AD Bryan, KE Hutchison, FM Filbey. Integrating brain and behavior: evaluating adolescents’ response to a cannabis intervention.. Psychol. Addict. Behav, 2013. [PubMed]
46. SW Feldstein Ewing, TR Apodaca, J Gaume. Ambivalence: Prerequisite for success in motivational interviewing with adolescents?. Addiction, 2016a. [PubMed]
47. SW Feldstein Ewing, SF Tapert, BS Molina. Uniting adolescent neuroimaging and treatment research: recommendations in pursuit of improved integration.. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev, 2016b. [PubMed]
48. SW Feldstein Ewing, JM Bjork, M Luciana. Implications of the ABCD study for developmental neuroscience.. Dev. Cogn. Neurosci, 2018. [PubMed]
49. S Feldstein Ewing, AD Bryan, GF Dash, TI Lovejoy, B Borsari, SJ Schmiege. Randomized controlled trial of motivational interviewing for alcohol and cannabis use within a predominantly Hispanic adolescent sample.. Exp. Clin. Psychopharmacol, 2021
50. B Fischer, S Kuganesan, R Room. Medical Marijuana programs: implications for cannabis control policy–observations from Canada.. Int. J. Drug Policy, 2015. [PubMed]
51. TP Freeman, AR Winstock. Examining the profile of high-potency cannabis and its association with severity of cannabis dependence.. Psychol. Med, 2015. [PubMed]
52. TP Freeman, P van der Pol, W Kuijpers, J Wisselink, RK Das, S Rigter, M van Laar, P Griffiths, W Swift, R Niesink, MT Lynskey. Changes in cannabis potency and first-time admissions to drug treatment: a 16-year study in the Netherlands.. Psychol. Med, 2018. [PubMed]
53. AM Freeman, K Petrilli, R Lees, C Hindocha, C Mokrysz, HV Curran, R Saunders, TP Freeman. How does cannabidiol (CBD) influence the acute effects of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in humans? A systematic review.. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev, 2019a. [PubMed]
54. TP Freeman, T Groshkova, A Cunningham, R Sedefov, P Griffiths, MT Lynskey. Increasing potency and price of cannabis in Europe, 2006–16.. Addiction, 2019b. [PubMed]
55. TP Freeman, C Hindocha, SF Green, MA Bloomfield. Medicinal use of cannabis based products and cannabinoids.. BMJ, 2019c
56. TP Freeman, S Craft, J Wilson, S Stylianou, M ElSohly, M Di Forti, MT Lynskey. Changes in delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) concentrations in cannabis over time: systematic review and meta-analysis.. Addiction, 2020a. [PubMed]
57. TP Freeman, C Hindocha, G Baio, NDC Shaban, EM Thomas, D Astbury, AM Freeman, R Lees, S Craft, PD Morrison, MAP Bloomfield, D O’Ryan, J Kinghorn, CJA Morgan, A Mofeez, HV Curran. Cannabidiol for the treatment of cannabis use disorder: a phase 2a, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, adaptive Bayesian trial.. Lancet Psychiatry, 2020b. [PubMed]
58. P Fusar-Poli, JA Crippa, S Bhattacharyya, SJ Borgwardt, P Allen, R Martin-Santos, M Seal, SA Surguladze, C O’Carrol, Z Atakan, AW Zuardi, PK McGuire. Distinct effects of {delta}9-tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol on neural activation during emotional processing.. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry, 2009. [PubMed]
59. E Galaj, ZX Xi. Possible receptor mechanisms underlying cannabidiol effects on addictive-like behaviors in experimental animals.. Int. J. Mol. Sci, 2020
60. PJ Gates, P Sabioni, J Copeland, B Le Foll, L Gowing. Psychosocial interventions for cannabis use disorder.. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev, 2016
61. LA Gayes, RG Steele. A meta-analysis of motivational interviewing interventions for pediatric health behavior change.. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol, 2014. [PubMed]
62. The global burden of disease attributable to alcohol and drug use in 195 countries and territories, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016.. Lancet Psychiatry., 2018. [DOI | PubMed]
63. JN Giedd. The amazing teen brain.. Sci. Am, 2015
64. J Girgis, T Pringsheim, J Williams, S Shafiq, S Patten. Cannabis use and internalizing/externalizing symptoms in youth: a canadian population-based study.. J. Adolesc. Health, 2020. [PubMed]
65. N Gogtay, JN Giedd, L Lusk, KM Hayashi, D Greenstein, AC Vaituzis, TF Nugent, DH Herman, LS Clasen, AW Toga, JL Rapoport, PM Thompson. Dynamic mapping of human cortical development during childhood through early adulthood.. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A, 2004. [PubMed]
66. JD Grant, MT Lynskey, JF Scherrer, A Agrawal, AC Heath, KK Bucholz. A cotwin-control analysis of drug use and abuse/dependence risk associated with early-onset cannabis use.. Addict. Behav, 2010. [PubMed]
67. KM Gray, MJ Carpenter, NL Baker, SM DeSantis, E Kryway, KJ Hartwell, AL McRae-Clark, KT Brady. A double-blind randomized controlled trial of N-acetylcysteine in cannabis-dependent adolescents.. Am. J. Psychiatry, 2012. [PubMed]
68. KM Gray, SC Sonne, EA McClure, UE Ghitza, AG Matthews, AL McRae-Clark, KM Carroll, JS Potter, K Wiest, LJ Mooney. A randomized placebo-controlled trial of N-acetylcysteine for cannabis use disorder in adults.. Drug Alcohol Depend., 2017. [PubMed]
69. KM Green, EE Doherty, EA Stuart, ME Ensminger. Does heavy adolescent marijuana use lead to criminal involvement in adulthood? Evidence from a multiwave longitudinal study of urban African Americans.. Drug Alcohol Depend., 2010. [PubMed]
70. KM Green, EE Doherty, ME Ensminger. Long-term consequences of adolescent cannabis use: examining intermediary processes.. Am. J. Drug Alcohol Abuse, 2017. [PubMed]
71. M Grønkjær, T Curtis, CD Crespigny, C Delmar. Acceptance and expectance: cultural norms for alcohol use in Denmark.. Int. J. Qual. Stud. Health Well-being, 2011
72. B Gunasekera, C Davies, R Martin-Santos, S Bhatthacharyya. The Yin and Yang of Cannabis-a systematic review of human neuroimaging evidence of the differential effects of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol.. Biol. Psychiatry Cogn. Neurosci. Neuroimaging, 2020. [PubMed]
73. I Hamilton, M Monaghan. Cannabis and psychosis: are we any closer to understanding the relationship?. Curr. Psychiatry Rep, 2019. [PubMed]
74. M Haney, CL Hart, SK Vosburg, J Nasser, A Bennett, C Zubaran, RW Foltin. Marijuana withdrawal in humans: effects of oral THC or divalproex.. Neuropsychopharmacology, 2004. [PubMed]
75. M Haney, CL Hart, SK Vosburg, SD Comer, SC Reed, RW Foltin. Effects of THC and lofexidine in a human laboratory model of marijuana withdrawal and relapse.. Psychopharmacology (Berl.), 2008. [PubMed]
76. M Haney, ZD Cooper, G Bedi, SK Vosburg, SD Comer, RW Foltin. Nabilone decreases marijuana withdrawal and a laboratory measure of marijuana relapse.. Neuropsychopharmacology, 2013. [PubMed]
77. LO Hanus, SM Meyer, E Munoz, O Taglialatela-Scafati, G Appendino. Phytocannabinoids: a unified critical inventory.. Nat. Prod. Rep, 2016. [PubMed]
78. DS Hasin. US epidemiology of cannabis use and associated problems.. Neuropsychopharmacology, 2018. [PubMed]
79. DS Hasin, TD Saha, BT Kerridge, RB Goldstein, SP Chou, H Zhang, J Jung, RP Pickering, WJ Ruan, SM Smith, B Huang, BF Grant. Prevalence of marijuana use disorders in the United States between 2001–2002 and 2012–2013.. Jama Psychiatry, 2015. [PubMed]
80. V Hendriks, E van der Schee, P Blanken. Treatment of adolescents with a cannabis use disorder: main findings of a randomized controlled trial comparing multidimensional family therapy and cognitive behavioral therapy in the Netherlands.. Drug Alcohol Depend., 2011. [PubMed]
81. M Hesse, B Thylstrup. Time-course of the DSM-5 cannabis withdrawal symptoms in poly-substance abusers.. BMC Psychiatry, 2013. [PubMed]
82. M Hesse, L Vallentin-Holbech, K Rømer Thomsen. Which youth are a risk for cannabis use disorders? Boys and girls are not the same.. J. Adolesc. Health, 2020. [PubMed]
83. J Hettema, J Steele, WR Miller. Motivational interviewing.. Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol, 2005. [PubMed]
84. KP Hill, MD Palastro, SA Gruber, GM Fitzmaurice, SF Greenfield, SE Lukas, RD Weiss. Nabilone pharmacotherapy for cannabis dependence: a randomized, controlled pilot study.. Am. J. Addict, 2017. [PubMed]
85. J Hirvonen, R Goodwin, C-T Li, G Terry, S Zoghbi, C Morse, V Pike, N Volkow, M Huestis, R Innis. Reversible and regionally selective downregulation of brain cannabinoid CB 1 receptors in chronic daily cannabis smokers.. Mol. Psychiatry, 2012. [PubMed]
86. C Hjorthøj, MO Larsen, MSK Starzer, M Nordentoft. Annual incidence of cannabis-induced psychosis, other substance-induced psychoses and dually diagnosed schizophrenia and cannabis use disorder in Denmark from 1994 to 2016.. Psychol. Med, 2019
87. AC Howlett, F Barth, TI Bonner, G Cabral, P Casellas, WA Devane, CC Felder, M Herkenham, K Mackie, BR Martin, R Mechoulam, RG Pertwee. International union of pharmacology. XXVII. Classification of cannabinoid receptors.. Pharmacol. Rev, 2002. [PubMed]
88. TA Iseger, MG Bossong. A systematic review of the antipsychotic properties of cannabidiol in humans.. Schizophr. Res, 2015. [PubMed]
89. M Järvinen, S Ravn. Cannabis careers revisited: applying Howard S. Becker’s theory to present-day cannabis use.. Soc. Sci. Med, 2014. [PubMed]
90. CD Jensen, CC Cushing, BS Aylward, JT Craig, DM Sorell, RG Steele. Effectiveness of motivational interviewing interventions for adolescent substance use behavior change: a meta-analytic review.. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol, 2011. [PubMed]
91. SD Johnson, A Stiffman, E Hadley-Ives, D Elze. An analysis of stressors and co-morbid mental health problems that contribute to youth’s paths to substance-specific services.. J. Behav. Health Serv. Res, 2001. [PubMed]
92. LD Johnston, RA Miech, PM O’Malley, JG Bachman, JE Schulenberg, ME Patrick. Monitoring the Future National Survey Results on Drug Use, 1975–2017: Overview, Key Findings on Adolescent Drug Use., 2018
93. BT Kerridge, PM Mauro, SP Chou, TD Saha, RP Pickering, AZ Fan, BF Grant, DS Hasin. Predictors of treatment utilization and barriers to treatment utilization among individuals with lifetime cannabis use disorder in the United States.. Drug Alcohol Depend., 2017. [PubMed]
94. SL Kvamme, MM Pedersen, S Alagem-Iversen, B Thylstrup. Beyond the high: mapping patterns of use and motives for use of cannabis as medicine.. Nord. Stud. Alcohol Drugs,, 2021
95. R Laprairie, A Bagher, M Kelly, E Denovan-Wright. Cannabidiol is a negative allosteric modulator of the cannabinoid CB1 receptor.. Br. J. Pharmacol, 2015. [PubMed]
96. CA Leaver, A Guttmann, M Zwarenstein, BH Rowe, G Anderson, T Stukel, B Golden, R Bell, D Morra, H Abrams, MJ Schull. Development of a minimization instrument for allocation of a hospital-level performance improvement intervention to reduce waiting times in Ontario emergency departments.. Implement. Sci, 2009. [PubMed]
97. R Lees, LA Hines, DC D’Souza, G Stothart, M Di Forti, E Hoch, TP Freeman. Psychosocial and pharmacological treatments for cannabis use disorder and mental health comorbidities: a narrative review.. Psychol. Med, 2021. [PubMed]
98. FR Levin, JJ Mariani, DJ Brooks, M Pavlicova, W Cheng, EV Nunes. Dronabinol for the treatment of cannabis dependence: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.. Drug Alcohol Depend., 2011. [PubMed]
99. FR Levin, JJ Mariani, M Pavlicova, D Brooks, A Glass, A Mahony, EV Nunes, A Bisaga, E Dakwar, KM Carpenter, MA Sullivan, JC Choi. Dronabinol and lofexidine for cannabis use disorder: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.. Drug Alcohol Depend., 2016. [PubMed]
100. N Lintzeris, A Bhardwaj, L Mills, A Dunlop, J Copeland, I McGregor, R Bruno, J Gugusheff, N Phung, M Montebello, T Chan, A Kirby, M Hall, M Jefferies, J Luksza, M Shanahan, R Kevin, D Allsop. Nabiximols for the treatment of cannabis dependence: a randomized clinical trial.. JAMA Intern. Med, 2019. [PubMed]
101. N Lintzeris, L Mills, A Dunlop, J Copeland, I McGregor, R Bruno, A Kirby, M Montebello, M Hall, M Jefferies, R Kevin, A Bhardwaj. Cannabis use in patients 3 months after ceasing nabiximols for the treatment of cannabis dependence: results from a placebo-controlled randomised trial.. Drug Alcohol Depend., 2020. [PubMed]
102. KM Lisdahl, ER Gilbart, NE Wright, S Shollenbarger. Dare to delay? The impacts of adolescent alcohol and marijuana use onset on cognition, brain structure, and function.. Front. Psychiatry, 2013. [PubMed]
103. MJE Loflin, BD Kiluk, MA Huestis, WM Aklin, AJ Budney, KM Carroll, DC D’Souza, RH Dworkin, KM Gray, DS Hasin, DC Lee, B Le Foll, FR Levin, JA Lile, BJ Mason, AL McRae-Clark, I Montoya, EN Peters, T Ramey, DC Turk, R Vandrey, RD Weiss, EC Strain. The state of clinical outcome assessments for cannabis use disorder clinical trials: a review and research agenda.. Drug Alcohol Depend., 2020. [PubMed]
104. J Manzanares, D Cabañero, N Puente, MS García-Gutiérrez, P Grandes, R Maldonado. Role of the endocannabinoid system in drug addiction.. Biochem. Pharmacol, 2018. [PubMed]
105. G Martin, J Copeland. The adolescent cannabis check-up: randomized trial of a brief intervention for young cannabis users.. J. Subst. Abuse Treat, 2008. [PubMed]
106. G Martin, J Copeland, W Swift. The adolescent cannabis check-up: feasibility of a brief intervention for young cannabis users.. J. Subst. Abuse Treat, 2005. [PubMed]
107. J McCambridge, J Strang. The efficacy of single-session motivational interviewing in reducing drug consumption and perceptions of drug-related risk and harm among young people: results from a multi-site cluster randomized trial.. Addiction, 2004. [PubMed]
108. MH Meier. Associations between butane hash oil use and cannabis-related problems.. Drug Alcohol Depend., 2017. [PubMed]
109. C Mokrysz, T Freeman, S Korkki, K Griffiths, H Curran. Are adolescents more vulnerable to the harmful effects of cannabis than adults? A placebo-controlled study in human males.. Transl. Psychiatry, 2016. [PubMed]
110. CJ Morgan, TP Freeman, GL Schafer, HV Curran. Cannabidiol attenuates the appetitive effects of Delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol in humans smoking their chosen cannabis.. Neuropsychopharmacology, 2010. [PubMed]
111. CJ Morgan, C Gardener, G Schafer, S Swan, C Demarchi, TP Freeman, P Warrington, I Rupasinghe, A Ramoutar, N Tan, G Wingham, S Lewis, HV Curran. Sub-chronic impact of cannabinoids in street cannabis on cognition, psychotic-like symptoms and psychological well-being.. Psychol. Med, 2012. [PubMed]
112. PD Morrison, V Zois, DA McKeown, TD Lee, DW Holt, JF Powell, S Kapur, RM Murray. The acute effects of synthetic intravenous Delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol on psychosis, mood and cognitive functioning.. Psychol. Med, 2009. [PubMed]
113. National Academies of Sciences, E., and Medicine, 2017. The Health Effects of Cannabis and Cannabinoids: The Current State of Evidence and Recommendations for Research. Washington, DC.
114. National Conference of State Legislatures, 2020. State medical marijuana laws. In: National Conference of State Legislatures. National Conference of State Legislatures. Washington, D.C. USA.
115. F Navarrete, MS García-Gutiérrez, A Gasparyan, A Austrich-Olivares, J Manzanares. Role of cannabidiol in the therapeutic intervention for substance use disorders.. Front. Pharmacol, 2021. [PubMed]
116. S Nielsen, L Gowing, P Sabioni, B Le Foll. Pharmacotherapies for cannabis dependence.. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev, 2019
117. S Nielsen, P Sabioni, L Gowing, B Le Foll. Pharmacotherapies for cannabis use disorders: clinical challenges and promising therapeutic agents.. Handb. Exp. Pharmacol, 2020. [PubMed]
118. DJ Nutt, LA King, DE Nichols. Effects of schedule I drug laws on neuroscience research and treatment innovation.. Nat. Rev. Neurosci, 2013. [PubMed]
119. AL Osborne, N Solowij, K Weston-Green. A systematic review of the effect of cannabidiol on cognitive function: relevance to schizophrenia.. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev, 2017. [PubMed]
120. RL Pacula, M Jacobson, EJ Maksabedian. In the weeds: a baseline view of cannabis use among legalizing states and their neighbours.. Addiction, 2016. [PubMed]
121. MU Pedersen, KS Frederiksen. Unge der misbruger rusmidler: Hvor mange, behov, behandling og stofforbrug efter behandling [Young people who abuse substances: How many, treatment need, treatment and use after treatment]., 2012
122. MU Pedersen, M Hesse, B Thylstrup, S Jones, MM Pedersen, KS Frederiksen. Vouchers versus reminders to prevent dropout: findings from the randomized youth drug abuse treatment project (youthDAT project).. Drug Alcohol Depend., 2021. [PubMed]
123. JH Pfeifer, ET Berkman. The development of self and identity in adolescence: neural evidence and implications for a value-based choice perspective on motivated behavior.. Child Dev. Perspect, 2018. [PubMed]
124. DJ Potter, K Hammond, S Tuffnell, C Walker, M Di Forti. Potency of delta (9) –tetrahydrocannabinol and other cannabinoids in cannabis in England in 2016: implications for public health and pharmacology.. Drug Test. Anal, 2018. [PubMed]
125. LA Ray, EN Grodin. Clinical neuroscience of addiction: what clinical psychologists need to know and why.. Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol, 2021. [PubMed]
126. LA Ray, EN Grodin, L Leggio, AJ Bechtholt, H Becker, SW Feldstein Ewing, JD Jentsch, AC King, BJ Mason, S O’Malley, J MacKillop, M Heilig, GF Koob. The future of translational research on alcohol use disorder.. Addict. Biol, 2021. [PubMed]
127. H Rigter, CE Henderson, I Pelc, P Tossmann, O Phan, V Hendriks, M Schaub, CL Rowe. Multidimensional family therapy lowers the rate of cannabis dependence in adolescents: a randomised controlled trial in Western European outpatient settings.. Drug Alcohol Depend., 2013. [PubMed]
128. ML Roditis, B Halpern-Felsher. Adolescents’ perceptions of risks and benefits of conventional cigarettes, E-cigarettes, and marijuana: a qualitative analysis.. J. Adolesc. Health, 2015. [PubMed]
129. K Rømer Thomsen, MB Callesen, SWF Ewing. Recommendation to reconsider examining cannabis subtypes together due to opposing effects on brain, cognition and behavior.. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev, 2017. [PubMed]
130. K Rømer Thomsen, C Lindholst, B Thylstrup, S Kvamme, LA Reitzel, M Worm-Leonhard, A Englund, TP Freeman, M Hesse. Changes in the composition of cannabis from 2000–2017 in Denmark: analysis of confiscated samples of cannabis resin.. Exp. Clin. Psychopharmacol, 2019. [PubMed]
131. EB Russo. Taming THC: potential cannabis synergy and phytocannabinoid-terpenoid entourage effects.. Br. J. Pharmacol, 2011. [PubMed]
132. EB Russo, A Burnett, B Hall, KK Parker. Agonistic properties of cannabidiol at 5-HT1a receptors.. Neurochem. Res, 2005. [PubMed]
133. J Schettino, F Leuschner, L Kasten, P Tossmann, E Hoch. Treatment of Cannabis-related Disorders in Europe., 2015
134. AK Schlag, C Hindocha, R Zafar, DJ Nutt, HV Curran. Cannabis based medicines and cannabis dependence: a critical review of issues and evidence.. J. Psychopharmacol, 2021. [PubMed]
135. JE Schlosburg, BL Carlson, D Ramesh, RA Abdullah, JZ Long, BF Cravatt, AH Lichtman. Inhibitors of endocannabinoid-metabolizing enzymes reduce precipitated withdrawal responses in THC-dependent mice.. AAPS J., 2009. [PubMed]
136. J Shedler, J Block. Adolescent drug use and psychological health. A longitudinal inquiry.. Am. Psychol, 1990. [PubMed]
137. CL Shover, K Humphreys. Six policy lessons relevant to cannabis legalization.. Am. J. Drug Alcohol Abuse, 2019. [PubMed]
138. JA Silvers, K McRae, JD Gabrieli, JJ Gross, KA Remy, KN Ochsner. Age-related differences in emotional reactivity, regulation, and rejection sensitivity in adolescence.. Emotion, 2012. [PubMed]
139. JA Silvers, LM Squeglia, K Rømer Thomsen, KA Hudson, SWF Ewing. Hunting for what works: adolescents in addiction treatment.. Alcohol.-Clin. Exp. Res, 2019. [PubMed]
140. R Smart, JP Caulkins, B Kilmer, S Davenport, G Midgette. Variation in cannabis potency and prices in a newly legal market: evidence from 30 million cannabis sales in Washington state.. Addiction, 2017. [PubMed]
141. TF Søgaard, T Kolind, B Thylstrup, R Deuchar. Desistance and the micro-narrative construction of reformed masculinities in a Danish rehabilitation centre.. Criminol. Crim. Justice, 2016
142. N Solowij, SJ Broyd, C Beale, JA Prick, LM Greenwood, H van Hell, C Suo, P Galettis, N Pai, S Fu, RJ Croft, JH Martin, M Yücel. Therapeutic effects of prolonged cannabidiol treatment on psychological symptoms and cognitive function in regular cannabis users: a pragmatic open-label clinical trial.. Cannabis Cannabinoid Res., 2018. [PubMed]
143. C Stanger, SR Ryan, EA Scherer, GE Norton, AJ Budney. Clinic- and home-based contingency management plus parent training for adolescent cannabis use disorders.. J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry, 2015
144. DW Steele, SJ Becker, KJ Danko, EM Balk, GP Adam, IJ Saldanha, TA Trikalinos. Brief behavioral interventions for substance use in adolescents: a meta-analysis.. Pediatrics, 2020
145. SA Stern, LS Meredith, J Gholson, P Gore, EJ D’Amico. Project CHAT: a brief motivational substance abuse intervention for teens in primary care.. J. Subst. Abuse Treat, 2007. [PubMed]
146. EA Stormshak, AS Caruthers, JM Gau, C Winter. The impact of recreational marijuana legalization on rates of use and behavior: a 10-year comparison of two cohorts from high school to young adulthood.. Psychol. Addict. Behav, 2019. [PubMed]
147. SF Tapert, AD Schweinsburg, SP Drummond, MP Paulus, SA Brown, TT Yang, LR Frank. Functional MRI of inhibitory processing in abstinent adolescent marijuana users.. Psychopharmacology (Berl.), 2007. [PubMed]
148. YM Terry-McElrath, PM O’Malley, LD Johnston. The growing transition from lifetime marijuana use to frequent use among 12th grade students: U.S. National data from 1976 to 2019.. Drug Alcohol Depend., 2020. [PubMed]
149. EA Thiele, ED Marsh, JA French, M Mazurkiewicz-Beldzinska, SR Benbadis, C Joshi, PD Lyons, A Taylor, C Roberts, K Sommerville. Cannabidiol in patients with seizures associated with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (GWPCARE4): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial.. Lancet, 2018. [PubMed]
150. JM Trigo, D Lagzdins, J Rehm, P Selby, I Gamaleddin, B Fischer, AJ Barnes, MA Huestis, B Le Foll. Effects of fixed or self-titrated dosages of Sativex on cannabis withdrawal and cravings.. Drug Alcohol Depend., 2016. [PubMed]
151. JM Trigo, A Soliman, LC Quilty, B Fischer, J Rehm, P Selby, AJ Barnes, MA Huestis, TP George, DL Streiner, G Staios, B Le Foll. Nabiximols combined with motivational enhancement/cognitive behavioral therapy for the treatment of cannabis dependence: a pilot randomized clinical trial.. PLoS One, 2018. [PubMed]
152. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 2020. World Drug Report 2020. United Nations publication.
153. S van de Groep, K Zanolie, KH Green, SW Sweijen, EA Crone. A daily diary study on adolescents’ mood, empathy, and prosocial behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic.. PLoS One, 2020. [PubMed]
154. P van der Pol, N Liebregts, R Graaf, DJ Korf, W den Brink, M van Laar. Facilitators and barriers in treatment seeking for cannabis dependence.. Drug Alchohol Depend., 2013
155. R Vandrey, ML Stitzer, MZ Mintzer, MA Huestis, JA Murray, D Lee. The dose effects of short-term dronabinol (oral THC) maintenance in daily cannabis users.. Drug Alcohol Depend., 2013. [PubMed]
156. ND Volkow, RD Baler, WM Compton, SR Weiss. Adverse health effects of marijuana use.. N. Engl. J. Med, 2014. [PubMed]
157. DD Walker, RS Stephens, CE Blevins, KE Banes, L Matthews, RA Roffman. Augmenting brief interventions for adolescent marijuana users: the impact of motivational check-ins.. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol, 2016. [PubMed]
158. MA Werneck, GT Kortas, AG de Andrade, JM Castaldelli-Maia. A systematic review of the efficacy of cannabinoid agonist replacement therapy for cannabis withdrawal symptoms.. CNS Drugs, 2018. [PubMed]
159. J Wilson, TP Freeman, CJ Mackie. Effects of increasing cannabis potency on adolescent health.. Lancet Child Adolesc. Health, 2019. [PubMed]
160. KC Winters, J Mader, AJ Budney, C Stanger, AA Knapp, DD Walker. Interventions for cannabis use disorder.. Curr. Opin. Psychol, 2021. [PubMed]
161. TT Winton-Brown, P Allen, S Bhattacharyya, SJ Borgwardt, P Fusar-Poli, JA Crippa, ML Seal, R Martin-Santos, D Ffytche, AW Zuardi, Z Atakan, PK McGuire. Modulation of auditory and visual processing by delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol: an FMRI study.. Neuropsychopharmacology, 2011. [PubMed]
162. A Zagzoog, KA Mohamed, HJJ Kim, ED Kim, CS Frank, T Black, PD Jadhav, LA Holbrook, RB Laprairie. In vitro and in vivo pharmacological activity of minor cannabinoids isolated from Cannabis sativa.. Sci. Rep, 2020. [PubMed]
163. A Zalesky, N Solowij, M Yücel, DI Lubman, M Takagi, IH Harding, V Lorenzetti, R Wang, K Searle, C Pantelis, M Seal. Effect of long-term cannabis use on axonal fibre connectivity.. Brain, 2012. [PubMed]