Acute administration of the primary psychoactive constituent of cannabis, Δ-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), impairs human facial affect recognition, implicating the endocannabinoid system in emotional processing. Another main constituent of cannabis, cannabidiol (CBD), has seemingly opposite functional effects on the brain. This study aimed to determine the effects of THC and CBD, both alone and in combination on emotional facial affect recognition. 48 volunteers, selected for high and low frequency of cannabis use and schizotypy, were administered, THC (8 mg), CBD (16 mg), THC+CBD (8 mg+16 mg) and placebo, by inhalation, in a 4-way, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover design. They completed an emotional facial affect recognition task including fearful, angry, happy, sad, surprise and disgust faces varying in intensity from 20% to 100%. A visual analogue scale (VAS) of feeling ‘stoned’ was also completed. In comparison to placebo, CBD improved emotional facial affect recognition at 60% emotional intensity; THC was detrimental to the recognition of ambiguous faces of 40% intensity. The combination of THC+CBD produced no impairment. Relative to placebo, both THC alone and combined THC+CBD equally increased feelings of being ‘stoned’. CBD did not influence feelings of ‘stoned’. No effects of frequency of use or schizotypy were found. In conclusion, CBD improves recognition of emotional facial affect and attenuates the impairment induced by THC. This is the first human study examining the effects of different cannabinoids on emotional processing. It provides preliminary evidence that different pharmacological agents acting upon the endocannabinoid system can both improve and impair recognition of emotional faces.
Background: There is a substantial and unmet clinical need for pharmacological treatment of cannabis use disorders. Cannabidiol (CBD) could offer a novel treatment but it is unclear which doses might be effective or safe.Methods: Participants meeting DSM-5 cannabis use disorder criteria were allocated to four-week treatment with oral CBD at 200mg, 400mg, 800mg or placebo during a cessation attempt using a double-blinded block randomisation sequence. All received a brief psychological intervention of motivational interviewing. An adaptive Bayesian dose-finding design was used to identify effective/ineffective doses at a priori interim and final analysis stages. The primary objective was to identify the Most Effective Dose (MED) of CBD for reducing cannabis use. The primary endpoint was lower urinary THC-COOH:creatinine concentrations and/or increased days per week abstinent from cannabis during treatment, evidenced by posterior probabilities exceeding Pr=0.9 for CBD versus placebo. All analyses were intention-to-treat.Outcomes: Participants were initially randomised to placebo, 200mg, 400mg and 800mg CBD (n=48; 1:1:1:1). At interim analysis 200mg CBD was eliminated from the trial as an ineffective dose.Randomisation continued to 400mg CBD, 800mg CBD, and placebo (n=34; 1:1:1). At final analysis, both 400mg CBD and 800mg CBD exceeded primary endpoint criteria (Pr=0.9) for both primary outcomes: urinary THC-COOH:creatinine (Pr(400mg=MED │Data)=0.9995; Pr(800mg=MED │Data)=0.9965), days per week abstinent from cannabis (Pr(400mg=MED │Data)=0.9966; Pr(800mg=MED │Data)=0.9247). Compared to placebo, 400mg CBD decreased THC-COOH:creatinine concentrations by -94.21 ng/ml (95% Interval ) and increased abstinence from cannabis by 0.48 days per week (95% Interval Estimate=0.15, 0.82). Compared to placebo, 800mg CBD decreased THC-COOH:creatinine concentrations by -72.02 ng/ml (95% Interval Estimate= -135.47, -19.52) and increased abstinence from cannabis by 0.27 days per week (95% Interval Estimate= -0.09, 0.64). CBD was well tolerated with no severe adverse events and 94% completed treatment.Interpretation: In the first randomised clinical trial of CBD for cannabis use disorder, 400mg and 800mg CBD were safe and more effective than placebo at reducing cannabis use.
RationaleAnecdotally, both acute and chronic cannabis use have been associated with apathy, amotivation, and other reward processing deficits. To date, empirical support for these effects is limited, and no previous studies have assessed both acute effects of Δ-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD), as well as associations with cannabis dependence.ObjectivesThe objectives of this study were (1) to examine acute effects of cannabis with CBD (Cann + CBD) and without CBD (Cann-CBD) on effort-related decision-making and (2) to examine associations between cannabis dependence, effort-related decision-making and reward learning.MethodsIn study 1, 17 participants each received three acute vaporized treatments, namely Cann-CBD (8 mg THC), Cann + CBD (8 mg THC + 10 mg CBD) and matched placebo, followed by a 50 % dose top-up 1.5 h later, and completed the Effort Expenditure for Rewards Task (EEfRT). In study 2, 20 cannabis-dependent participants were compared with 20 non-dependent, drug-using control participants on the EEfRT and the Probabilistic Reward Task (PRT) in a non-intoxicated state.ResultsCann-CBD reduced the likelihood of high-effort choices relative to placebo (p = 0.042) and increased sensitivity to expected value compared to both placebo (p = 0.014) and Cann + CBD (p = 0.006). The cannabis-dependent and control groups did not differ on the EEfRT. However, the cannabis-dependent group exhibited a weaker response bias than the control group on the PRT (p = 0.007).ConclusionsCannabis acutely induced a transient amotivational state and CBD influenced the effects of THC on expected value. In contrast, cannabis dependence was associated with preserved motivation alongside impaired reward learning, although confounding factors, including depression, cannot be disregarded. This is the first well powered, fully controlled study to objectively demonstrate the acute amotivational effects of THC.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00213-016-4383-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
The main active ingredient in cannabis, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), can acutely induce psychotic symptoms and impair episodic and working memory. Another major constituent, cannabidiol (CBD), may attenuate these effects. This study aimed to determine the effects of THC and CBD, both alone and in combination on psychotic symptoms and memory function. A randomised, double-blind crossover design compared the effects of (i) placebo, (ii) THC 8 mg, (iii) CBD 16 mg and (iv) THC 8 mg + CBD 16 mg administered by inhalation through a vaporiser. Using an experimental medicine approach to predict treatment sensitivity, we selected 48 cannabis users from the community on the basis of (1) schizotypal personality questionnaire scores (low, high) and (2) frequency of cannabis use (light, heavy). The Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Psychotomimetic States Inventory (PSI), immediate and delayed prose recall (episodic memory), 1- and 2-back (working memory) were assessed on each day. Results indicated that THC increased overall scores on the PSI, negative symptoms on BPRS, and robustly impaired episodic and working memory. Co-administration of CBD did not attenuate these effects. CBD alone reduced PSI scores in light users only. At a ratio of 2:1, CBD does not attenuate the acute psychotic and memory impairing effects of vaporised THC. Frequent cannabis users may show a blunted anti- psychotic response to CBD, which is of concern due to the high rates of cannabis use disorders in patients with schizophrenia.
When using their own cannabis in a naturalistic setting, people titrate the amount they roll in joints according to concentrations of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) but not cannabidiol (CBD). Recreational users thus show poor understanding of cannabis potency.
The recent liberalisation of cannabis regulation has increased public and scientific debate about its potential benefits and risks. A key focus has been the extent to which cannabidiol (CBD) might influence the acute effects of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), but this has never been reviewed systematically. In this systematic review of how CBD influences the acute effects of THC we identified 16 studies involving 466 participants. Ten studies were judged at low risk of bias. The findings were mixed, although CBD was found to reduce the effects of THC in several studies. Some studies found that CBD reduced intense experiences of anxiety or psychosis-like effects of THC and blunted some of the impairments on emotion and reward processing. However, CBD did not consistently influence the effects of THC across all studies and outcomes. There was considerable heterogeneity in dose, route of administration and THC:CBD ratio across studies and no clear dose-response profile emerged. Although findings were mixed, this review suggests that CBD may interact with some acute effects of THC.
Confidence is the ‘feeling of knowing’ that accompanies decision making. Bayesian theory proposes that confidence is a function solely of the perceived probability of being correct. Empirical research has suggested, however, that different individuals may perform different computations to estimate confidence from uncertain evidence. To test this hypothesis, we collected confidence reports in a task where subjects made categorical decisions about the mean of a sequence. We found that for most individuals, confidence did indeed reflect the perceived probability of being correct. However, in approximately half of them, confidence also reflected a different probabilistic quantity: the perceived uncertainty in the estimated variable. We found that the contribution of both quantities was stable over weeks. We also observed that the influence of the perceived probability of being correct was stable across two tasks, one perceptual and one cognitive. Overall, our findings provide a computational interpretation of individual differences in human confidence.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.