A systematic review of longitudinal studies investigating the impact of cannabis use in patients with psychotic disorders

Author(s):  
Maria Athanassiou ◽  
Alexandre Dumais ◽  
Gismonde Gnanhoue ◽  
Amal Abdel-Baki ◽  
Didier Jutras-Aswad ◽  
...  
2008 ◽  
Vol 193 (5) ◽  
pp. 357-363 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stanley Zammit ◽  
Theresa H. M. Moore ◽  
Anne Lingford-Hughes ◽  
Thomas R. E. Barnes ◽  
Peter B. Jones ◽  
...  

BackgroundIt is unclear if research findings support clinical opinion that cannabis use leads to worse outcomes in people with psychosis, or whether this impression is confounded by other factors.AimsTo systematically review the evidence pertaining to whether cannabis affects outcome of psychotic disorders.MethodWe searched 10 relevant databases (to November 2006), reference lists of included studies and contacted experts. We included 13 longitudinal studies from 15 303 references. Data extraction and quality assessment were conducted independently and in duplicate.ResultsCannabis use was consistently associated with increased relapse and non-adherence. Associations with other outcome measures were more disparate. Few studies adjusted for baseline illness severity, and most made no adjustment for alcohol, or other potentially important confounders. Adjusting for even a few confounders often resulted in substantial attenuation of results.ConclusionsConfidence that most associations reported were specifically due to cannabis is low. Despite clinical opinion, it remains important to establish whether cannabis is harmful, what outcomes are particularly susceptible, and how such effects are mediated. Studies to examine this further are eminently feasible.


Work & Stress ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 91-114 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tanja de Jong ◽  
Noortje Wiezer ◽  
Marjolein de Weerd ◽  
Karina Nielsen ◽  
Pauliina Mattila-Holappa ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 269 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-58 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claire Gorey ◽  
Lauren Kuhns ◽  
Eleni Smaragdi ◽  
Emese Kroon ◽  
Janna Cousijn

Author(s):  
Sana Ben-Harchache ◽  
Helen M Roche ◽  
Clare A Corish ◽  
Katy M Horner

ABSTRACT Protein supplementation is an attractive strategy to prevent loss of muscle mass in older adults. However, it could be counterproductive due to adverse effects on appetite. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the effects of protein supplementation on appetite and/or energy intake (EI) in healthy older adults. MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and Web of Science were searched up to June 2020. Acute and longitudinal studies in healthy adults ≥60 y of age that reported effects of protein supplementation (through supplements or whole foods) compared with control and/or preintervention (for longitudinal studies) on appetite ratings, appetite-related peptides, and/or EI were included. Random-effects model meta-analysis was performed on EI, with other outcomes qualitatively reviewed. Twenty-two studies (9 acute, 13 longitudinal) were included, involving 857 participants (331 males, 526 females). In acute studies (n = 8), appetite ratings were suppressed in 7 out of 24 protein arms. For acute studies reporting EI (n = 7, n = 22 protein arms), test meal EI was reduced following protein preload compared with control [mean difference (MD): −164 kJ; 95% CI: −299, −29 kJ; P  = 0.02]. However, when energy content of the supplement was accounted for, total EI was greater with protein compared with control (MD: 649 kJ; 95% CI: 438, 861 kJ; P < 0.00001). Longitudinal studies (n = 12 protein arms) showed a higher protein intake (MD: 0.29 g ⋅ kg−1 ⋅ d−1; 95% CI: 0.14, 0.45 g ⋅ kg−1 ⋅ d−1; P < 0.001) and no difference in daily EI between protein and control groups at the end of trials (MD: −54 kJ/d; 95% CI: −300, 193 kJ/d; P  = 0.67). While appetite ratings may be suppressed with acute protein supplementation, there is either a positive effect or no effect on total EI in acute and longitudinal studies, respectively. Therefore, protein supplementation may represent an effective solution to increase protein intakes in healthy older adults without compromising EI through appetite suppression. This trial was registered at PROSPERO as https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42019125771 (CRD42019125771).


2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 186-194
Author(s):  
Mark Shevlin ◽  
Eoin McElroy ◽  
Jamie Murphy ◽  
Philip Hyland ◽  
Frédérique Vallieres ◽  
...  

Purpose While research has consistently identified an association between cannabis use and psychosis, few studies have examined this relationship in a polydrug context (i.e. combining cannabis with other illicit substances). The paper aims to discuss this issue. Design/methodology/approach The present study sought to examine the association between recreational drug use (cannabis only vs polydrug) and psychotic disorders. Analysis was conducted on a large, representative survey of young Danish people aged 24 (n=4,718). Participants completed self-report measures of lifetime drug use and this information was linked to the Danish psychiatric registry system. Findings Multivariate binary logistic regression analysis was used to examine the association between drug use (no drug use, cannabis only, cannabis and other drug) and ICD-10 psychotic disorders, while controlling for gender and parental history of psychosis. Compared with no drug use, the use of cannabis only did not increase the risk of psychosis while the odds ratio for cannabis and other drug were statistically significant. Research limitations/implications Psychosis risk may be associated with the cumulative effect of polydrug use. Practical implications Cannabis use may be a proxy for other drug use in research studies. Originality/value This study is innovative as it uses linked self-report and administrative data for a large sample. Administrative data were used to as an objective mental health status indicator.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document