Pubdate: Wed, 22 May 2002
Source: Journal of the American Medical Association (US)
Vol: 287 No. 20, May 22/29, 2002
Copyright: 2002 American Medical Association.
Contact:  http://jama.ama-assn.org/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/219
Note: References in [  ]  authors shown below their letters

DOES MARIJUANA USE CAUSE LONG-TERM COGNITIVE DEFICITS?

To the Editor: Dr Solowij and colleagues [1] concluded that their findings 
"confirm that long-term heavy cannabis users show impairments in memory and 
attention that endure beyond the period of intoxication." In his 
accompanying Editorial, Dr Pope [2] pointed out that this study could not 
establish a causal relationship between use of marijuana and later declines 
in cognitive performance. Neither Solowij et al nor Pope, however, referred 
to laboratory studies designed to assess causality, such as ours, which 
evaluated the effects of acute marijuana administration on complex 
cognitive performance in regular marijuana smokers. [3] Unlike the subjects 
of Solowij et al, these individuals were not seeking treatment and had 
heavier marijuana use, averaging 24 marijuana cigarettes per week. 
Participants smoked a single marijuana cigarette during 3 separate 
outpatient sessions containing varying amounts of tetrahydrocannabinol, 
which had minimal effects on cognitive functioning. Chait [4] reported 
similar findings.

Both of these laboratory studies found minimal cognitive deficits after 
marijuana administration in experienced users and suggest that recent 
marijuana use is a minimal confounder in experienced marijuana users. Data 
from well-controlled laboratory studies in combination with data from 
retrospective studies can ultimately provide a more comprehensive view of 
marijuana-related effects on human cognitive performance.

Erik W. Gunderson, MD; Suzanne K. Vosburg, PhD; Carl L. Hart, PhD; 
Department of Psychiatry, Division on Substance Abuse, New York State 
Psychiatric Institute and College of Physicians and Surgeons of Columbia 
University, New York

1. Solowij N, Stephens RS, Roffman RA, et al, for the Marijuana Treatment 
Project Research Group. Cognitive functioning of long-term heavy cannabis 
users seeking treatment. JAMA. 2002;287:1123-1131. ( 
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v02/n395/a10.html )

2. Pope HG Jr. Cannabis, cognition, and residual confounding. JAMA. 
2002;287:1172-1174 ( http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v02/n396/a01.html )

3. Hart CL, van Gorp W, Haney M, et al. Effects of acute smoked marijuana 
on complex cognitive performance. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2001;25:757-765.

4. Chait LD. Subjective and behavioral effects of marijuana the morning 
after smoking. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 1990;100:328-333.

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------

To the Editor: While the study of Dr Solowij and colleagues [1] 
demonstrates a significant difference in cognitive function between 
long-term users and short-term/nonusers of marijuana, I am concerned about 
possible selection biases. Because all the marijuana users in this trial 
were actively seeking assistance with reduction or cessation, the sample 
may be biased toward those individuals who feel they have a substance use 
problem so severe it requires treatment.

Michael Watson, MC, USNR, Department of Family Practice, Naval Hospital, 
Jacksonville, Fla

1. Solowij N, Stephens RS, Roffman RA, et al, for the Marijuana Treatment 
Project Research Group. Cognitive functioning of long-term heavy cannabis 
users seeking treatment. JAMA. 2002;287:1123-1131. ( 
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v02/n395/a10.html )

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------

To the Editor: I would like to point out 2 defects in the study of Dr 
Solowij et al. First, it does not control for age-related differences in 
cognitive function, which could potentially cause the differences between 
the long- and shorter-term user groups. Second, cannabinoids are present 
for many days after ingestion. Age-related differences in excretion may 
also explain the apparent difference in function between long- and 
shorter-term users of marijuana.

Julia R. Nyquist, MD; San Anselmo, Calif

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------

In Reply: Dr Gunderson and colleagues refer to controlled laboratory 
studies that found minimal cognitive deficits in experienced users after 
acute marijuana administration. These findings support our interpretation 
that the observed long-term effects were unlikely to be confounded by 
residual effects of recent cannabis use. Our study was designed 
specifically to investigate chronic effects, with years of use as our 
variable of interest. By requiring several hours abstinence prior to 
testing, we induced an unintoxicated cognitive state that long-term users 
typically operate in for substantial periods in their daily life. We showed 
that impairments were generally unrelated to withdrawal and recent use. We 
concluded that a probable causal relationship exists because we controlled 
for potential confounding factors.

It should be noted that the experienced cannabis users in these laboratory 
studies did not approach the long-term durations reported by participants 
in our study, and that the potency of cannabis smoked in the community is 
generally greater than that administered in the laboratory. Nevertheless, 
we agree that controlled laboratory studies provide a valuable complement 
to naturalistic studies like ours. Just as acute effects of cannabis differ 
in experienced vs naive subjects, long-term effects vary with the frequency 
and duration of cannabis use. This and the mechanisms involved in the 
development of tolerance to the acute effects of cannabinoids on cognition 
are complex issues that require further research.

Dr Watson expresses concern about selection bias. Although the participants 
in this study were seeking treatment, their impairments were related 
specifically to the number of years that cannabis had been used, 
replicating our previous findings in cannabis users not seeking treatment. 
[1] Thus, regardless of treatment seeking, there is good evidence for a 
neurobiological explanation underlying cognitive impairments that develop 
over many years of exposure to cannabis.

Dr Nyquist claims that there was a lack of control for age differences 
between groups. We included age as a covariate in analyses where it 
correlated with test performance and we performed semipartial correlations 
to examine the unique contributions of age and duration of cannabis use to 
the variance in cognitive test performance (reported in Table 4). Because 
age and duration of cannabis use are so inextricably linked, isolation of 
effects associated with years of cannabis use relies on statistical control 
methods; our results showed a greater unique contribution from the years of 
cannabis use. We ensured that the control group did not differ in age from 
the overall cannabis user sample prior to their division into long- and 
shorter-term user groups. Our previous studies1 have shown cognitive 
impairments in long-term cannabis users compared with age-matched controls. 
We are unaware of any literature showing age-related differences in 
excretion of cannabinoid metabolites.

Nadia Solowij, PhD; National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University 
of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia; Department of Psychology, University 
of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia

Thomas Babor, PhD, MPH; Department of Community Medicine, University of 
Connecticut Health Center, Farmington

Robert Stephens, PhD; Department of Psychology, Virginia Polytechnic 
Institute and State University, Blacksburg

Roger A. Roffman, DSW; Innovative Programs Research Group, School of Social 
Work, University of Washington, Seattle, for the Marijuana Treatment 
Project Research Group

1. Solowij N. Cannabis and Cognitive Functioning. Cambridge, United 
Kingdom: Cambridge University Press; 1998.

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------

To the Editor: In his Editorial accompanying our paper on cognitive 
functioning in long-term heavy cannabis users, [1] Dr Pope [2] makes 
inferences that question the validity of our findings. We point out that 
the possible confounding factors that Pope alludes to were in fact 
controlled in our study. We also wish to clarify other issues that he 
brings up.

First, we did not claim that the cognitive impairments associated with 
long-term heavy cannabis use in our study were irreversible; we only showed 
no performance differences between those abstaining for less than or more 
than 17 hours (range, up to 240 hours). A reversible deficit need not 
necessarily be due to a residue of cannabinoids or to withdrawal, which our 
data did not support. These impairments could be interpreted in terms of a 
gradual adaptation of the nervous system to prolonged exposure to exogenous 
cannabinoids, possibly resulting in altered functioning of the endogenous 
cannabinoid or other neuromodulator systems. After prolonged abstinence, 
these systems may well return to healthy function. Future analyses from 
this study will investigate recovery of function in the same sample 4 
months after cessation or reduction of cannabis use.

Second, Pope suggests that our results may have been influenced by residual 
confounding. Our screening of participants was very thorough: there was no 
greater incidence among the cannabis users of head injury, concussion, 
hospitalization, treatment seeking for psychological or emotional problems, 
or use of prescription medications. Data (not reported in the article) 
showed no association between performance on the cognitive tests and 
psychological distress as measured by the Beck Depression Inventory, 
State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, and Brief Symptom Inventory, on which 
shorter-term users generally had the highest scores yet did not differ from 
controls in cognitive performance.

Similarly, no site differences were found in either sociodemographics or 
cognitive test performance. The sex ratio did not differ between any of our 
groups but since Pope and Yurgelun-Todd had previously reported sex 
differences in cognitive effects of cannabis, [3] we also investigated 
these and found none. Contrary to Pope's assertion that the results may be 
explained by differences in prior abuse of other substances, we showed that 
significant memory impairment was evident in the long-term users after 
excluding participants with previous histories of other substance use. We 
also reported analyses that countered the hypothesis that these effects 
might be due to age or to recent use of cannabis.

The results replicate findings from our earlier studies that used different 
cognitive tests and measures of brain electrical activity [4] to show that 
cognitive impairments worsen with the number of years of cannabis use. Few 
studies have investigated the effects of duration of cannabis use. Of 
course, there may be unknown influences affecting associations of this kind 
but the evidence from our study supports the most parsimonious conclusion 
that it is the years of cannabis use that produces the impairment.

Nadia Solowij, PhD; National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University 
of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia; Department of Psychology, University 
of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia

Robert Stephens, PhD; Department of Psychology, Virginia Polytechnic 
Institute and State University, Blacksburg

Roger A. Roffman, DSW; Innovative Programs Research Group, School of Social 
Work, University of Washington, Seattle

Thomas Babor, PhD, MPH; Department of Community Medicine, University of 
Connecticut Health Center, Farmington for the Marijuana Treatment Project 
Research Group

1. Solowij N, Stephens RS, Roffman RA, et al, for the Marijuana Treatment 
Project Research Group. Cognitive functioning of long-term heavy cannabis 
users seeking treatment. JAMA. 2002;287:1123-1131.

2. Pope HG Jr. Cannabis, cognition, and residual confounding. JAMA. ( 
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v02/n396/a01.html )

3. Pope HG Jr, Yurgelun-Todd D. The residual cognitive effects of heavy 
marijuana use in college students. JAMA. 1996;275:521-527.

4. Solowij N. Cannabis and Cognitive Functioning. Cambridge, United 
Kingdom: Cambridge University Press; 1998.

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------

In Reply: Dr Solowij and colleagues provide reassurance regarding their 
extensive efforts to control for possible confounds. Our similar study [1] 
of equally long-term cannabis users agrees with theirs in finding cognitive 
impairment hours to days after discontinuing cannabis. However, our studies 
still disagree on one important point: Solowij et al found increasing 
cognitive impairment with increasing duration of cannabis use, whereas we 
did not.

I still believe that the most parsimonious explanation for this discrepancy 
is residual confounding, either from inadequate adjustment for measured 
confounders or (perhaps more likely) from the presence of unmeasured 
confounders. This is because both studies depend heavily on the assumption 
that, after appropriate statistical adjustments, longer- and 
shorter-duration cannabis users are comparable on all factors, other than 
the amount of exposure, that would influence the outcome. [2, 3] Such 
comparability may be almost impossible to achieve in a retrospective study, 
particularly since preexposure cognitive function and latent vulnerability 
to neuropsychiatric disorders (either unexpressed or only partially 
expressed) may predispose to duration of cannabis use and may influence 
outcome.

Even in seemingly well-matched groups, minor confounders can substantially 
alter estimated effects. One cannot exclude the possibility that among 
cannabis users spontaneously seeking psychiatric treatment for their drug 
use, subtle neuropsychiatric factors, not induced by cannabis, may affect 
cognitive performance despite the best efforts to control for such factors. 
The most that can be concluded is that the effect sizes observed in our 2 
studies are simultaneously consistent either with no duration-associated 
deficits at all (all observed differences being due to residual 
confounding) or with a substantial association of possible clinical 
importance. Therefore, I stand by my conclusion that we must live with 
uncertainly.

Harrison G. Pope, Jr, MD; Biological Psychiatry Laboratory, McLean 
Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Belmont, Mass

1. Pope HG Jr, Gruber AJ, Hudson JI, Huestis MA, Yurgelun-Todd D. 
Neuropsychological performance in long-term cannabis users. Arch Gen 
Psychiatry. 2001;58:909-915.

2. Greenland S, Robins JM. Identifiability, exchangeability, and 
epidemiologic confounding. Int J Epidemiol. 1986;15:412-418.

3. Little RJ, Rubin DB. Causal effects in clinical and epidemiologic 
studies via potential outcomes: concepts and analytical approaches. Annu 
Rev Public Health. 2000;21:121-145.