Rationale Attentional bias to drug-related stimuli is hypothesised to contribute towards addiction. However, the acute effects of Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) on attentional bias to cannabis cues, the differential response in adults and adolescents, and the moderating effect of cannabidiol (CBD) are unknown. Objectives Our study investigated (1) the acute effects of vaporised cannabis on attentional bias to cannabis-related images in adults and adolescents and (2) the moderating influences of age and CBD. Methods We conducted a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over study where three weight-adjusted vaporised cannabis preparations: ‘THC’ (8 mg THC for a 75-kg person), ‘THC + CBD’ (8 mg THC and 24 mg CBD for a 75-kg person) and PLA (matched placebo). Cannabis was administered on 3 separate days to 48 participants, who used cannabis 0.5–3 days/week: 24 adolescents (12 females, aged 16–17) and 24 adults (12 females, aged 26–29). Participants completed a visual probe task with cannabis cues. Our primary outcome was attentional bias to cannabis stimuli, measured using the differential reaction time to a cannabis vs. neutral probe, on 200-ms trials. Results In contrast to hypotheses, attention was directed away from cannabis cues on placebo, and there was a main effect of the drug ( F (2,92) = 3.865, p = 0.024, η 2 p = 0.077), indicating THC administration eliminated this bias. There was no significant impact of CBD nor an age-by-drug interaction. Conclusions Acute THC intoxication eliminated attentional bias away from cannabis cues. There was no evidence of differential response in adolescents compared to adults and no evidence that a moderate vaporised dose of CBD altered the impact of cannabis on attentional bias. Trial registration This study was listed with the US National Library of Medicine and registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, URL: Do Adolescents and Adults Differ in Their Acute Response to Cannabis?—Full Text View—ClinicalTrials.gov , registration number: NCT04851392.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hall et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: