Correspondence: When an article is eligible for submission of
Correspondence, a link to the response form is available within the full-text
article. You must be a
current subscriber who has activated the online portion of your subscription
in order to send a Correspondence. Any reader can read published
Correspondence.
Dr. Messinis et al [1] concluded that "heavy long-term frequent cannabis use leads to subtle deficits in
specific neuropsychological domains." In the Introduction, the authors note that Pope et al [2] did not observe
consistent cognitive deficits in frequent long-term cannabis users who
had undergone a 28-day abstinence period. However, Messinis et al failed
to control for length of abstinent period in their study.
It is important
to control for this variable because frequent cannabis use is associated
with an abstinence syndrome upon cessation of drug use [3], and poor
neurocognitive functioning [4] is a key feature of this syndrome.
On
average, the cannabis users in the Messinis et al study were abstinent
for approximately 123 hrs prior to neuropsychological evaluation. Note
that the peak effects of the cannabis abstinence syndrome occur between 48
-144 hrs following the cessation of cannabis use. [5] It is likely that
study participants in the Messinis et al study were in the midst of
cannabis withdrawal during neurocognitive testing. Therefore, the data
from this study should be interpreted within the context of this important
caveat.
References
1. Messinis L, Kyprianidou A, Malefaki S, Papathanasopoulos P.
Neuropsychological deficits in long-term frequent cannabis users.
Neurology 2006; 66: 737-739.
2. Pope HG, Gruber AJ, Hudson JI, Huestis MA, Todd DY.
Neuropsychological performance in long-term cannabis users. Arch Gen
Psychiatry 2001; 58: 909–915.
3. Hart CL. Increasing treatment options for cannabis dependence: a
review of potential pharmacotherapies. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 2005;
80: 147-159.
4. Haney M, Hart CL, Vosburg SK, et al. Marijuana withdrawal in
humans: effects of oral THC or divalproex. Neuropsychopharmacology 2004;
29: 158-170.
5. Budney AJ, Hughes JR, Moore BA, Vandrey R. Review of the validity
and significance of cannabis withdrawal syndrome. American Journal of
Psychiatry 2004; 161: 1967-1977.
Disclosure: The authors report no conflicts of interest.
Reply from the Authors
15 May 2006
Lambros Messinis, Department of Neurology, University of Patras Medical School Rixinoros 6 , Patras , Greece, Papathanasopoulos Panagiotis
We thank Drs. Accordino and Hart for their interest in our study.
They raise an important issue concerning the abstinence syndrome upon
cessation of cannabis use. Regarding this issue, at the time of
neuropsychological assessment, approximately 80% of our sample reported
that they were not experiencing any discomfort due to cannabis abstinence
and we did not observe any significant withdrawal symptoms in our cannabis
groups during testing. A well controlled study by Solowij et al. [6] of
long vs. short term cannabis users showed that cognitive impairments
(after a median 17-hour abstinence period) were “generally unrelated to
withdrawal effects and recent use. Bolla et al [7] reported “persistent
decrements in neurocognitive performance even after 28 days of abstinence
in heavy cannabis users. Controlled laboratory studies [8, 9] have also
shown recent cannabis use to be a minimal confounder in experienced
cannabis users, as were the cannabis users in our study.
References
6. Solowij, Í, Stephens, RS, Roffman, RA et al. Cognitive functioning
of 1ong-term heavy cannabis users seeking treatment. Journal of the
American Medical Association. 2002; 287: 1123-1131.
7. Bolla, KI, Brown, K, Eldreth, D et al. Dose-related neurocognitive
effects of marijuana use. Neurology. 2002; 59: 1337-1343
8. Hart CL, van Gorp W, Haney M, et al. Effects of acute smoked
marijuana on complex cognitive performance. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2001;
25: 757-765.
9. Chait LD. Subjective and behavioural effects of marijuana the
morning after smoking. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 1990; 100: 328-333.
Disclosure: The authors report no conflicts of interest.