A randomized controlled trial of brief intervention for patients with cannabis use disorder

INTRODUCTION

Cannabis is by far the most extensively cultivated, seized, and abused illicit substance in the world.^[1] In the year 2019, about 200 million individuals used cannabis globally.^[1] Cannabis usage over many years and decades appears to cause long-term memory and cognition problems, particularly when cannabis use is initiated early.^[2,3]

Major epidemiological studies have also revealed the high frequency of cannabis use in different countries. The National Epidemiologic Survey of Alcohol and Related Conditions–III found that cannabis usage among adults doubled between the early 2000s and 2010s, which also reflected a substantial increase in the prevalence of cannabis use disorders.^[4] According to the most recent National Survey on Drug Use and Health, current cannabis use in the United States (in the previous month) grew from 31.6 million to 32.8 million in 2021. In Australia, Europe, and the United States, the number of individuals with cannabis-related problems who seek treatment has increased during the last couple of decades.^[5-7]

There are currently very limited pharmacological agents licensed for the management of cannabis use disorder. Although several pharmacologic treatments have been suggested for off-label use, there is insufficient evidence to guide clinical practice based on studies conducted to date on pharmacotherapies for cannabis dependence.^[8]

Only a few individuals with cannabis use disorder seek treatment.^[9] According to reports, about 10–36% of people with a cannabis use disorder get therapy,^[10-12] while the rest go untreated. Despite its widespread use and significant morbidity, no pharmacological treatment for addiction to cannabis is currently authorized. Hence, psychosocial approaches remain the mainstay for addressing this issue. Various systematic reviews and meta-analyses have highlighted that individuals with cannabis use disorder who received a psychosocial intervention fared better.^[13,14] The evidence base of approaches for cannabis use disorders is gradually expanding. Cognitive behavioral techniques, contingency management, motivation improvement approaches, and a variety of brief interventions are just a few of them. Many interventions aimed at those seeking therapy are intensive in terms of time and money required, and their availability is typically limited. Brief interventions have been designed to address the issue of time and resource commitments required. Brief intervention is a systematic, non-judgmental, and client-centered treatment delivered by a trained individual over the course of 1–4 counseling sessions (each session usually 5–30 min).^[15-17] Hence, they could be implemented to help many people with cannabis use disorder and related issues. Cannabis cessation rates have been observed to improve when brief psychological therapies based on motivational interviewing approaches are used.^[18] The findings of research evaluating the efficacy and/ or effectiveness of limited-session therapies for the treatment of cannabis use disorders suggest that there can be a variable extent of improvements in outcome measures compared to no therapy.^[19,20]

In the Indian setting, according to a recent pan-Indian national level survey, more than 3% of adults and about 1% of adolescents used cannabis in the preceding year.^[21] Overall, men (5%) were more likely than women (0.6%) to have used cannabis in the previous year. Balhara et al.^[22] examined cannabis use trends and found that around 14% of those seeking treatment for addictive disorders reported cannabis use. Polysubstance users were common in this sample. In India, cannabis use is rarely the presenting complaint of treatment-seekers.^[23] Hence, there is a need to more comprehensively address cannabis use disorder.

In India where resources are limited and competing public health demands predominate, brief interventions offer some distinct advantages. With limited resources, brief interventions could be an efficient strategy to address the problem of cannabis usage in a wide segment of the population. Furthermore, it has been found that the majority of cannabis users suffer from mild-to-moderate dependence and so are suitable for brief interventions. There are limited studies for brief interventions in the Indian context for cannabis use disorders.^[24] Therefore, this study was planned to conduct a single-session outpatient brief intervention for cannabis use disorder. The main objective of the study was to compare the reduction in the days of cannabis use with a manualized brief intervention and simple advice in patients with cannabis use disorder. Another objective was to compare the severity of cannabis use with the two interventions in this population.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

RESULTS

One hundred and thirty-five participants were approached for inclusion. Out of them, 35 were excluded (31 did not fulfill the criteria of mild-to-moderate cannabis use disorder, two were <18 years, and two refused participation). Thus, 100 participants were randomized to either of the two arms (brief intervention and simple advice). There were no significant differences between both arms in terms of their sociodemographic profile [Table 1]. The CONSORT diagram is provided in Figure 1.

Close

Figure 1:

CONSORT diagram of the trial.

Export to PPT

The two groups did not diverge in terms of the type of cannabis use. Neither did the groups vary substantially in terms of location of cannabis use, time of day cannabis intake, and cannabis used alone or with someone else. While a majority of the participants had comorbid opioid use disorder, the two groups were not different in terms of the use of other substances including tobacco, alcohol, opioid, and benzodiazepines.

At baseline, past-month cannabis use was similar across the two groups. The median number of days of past-month cannabis use at baseline in the brief intervention group and simple advice group was 30, suggesting that participants were consuming cannabis daily. The median number of past month cannabis use in brief intervention groups were 25, 26.5, and 30 days at 4, 8, and 12 weeks, respectively. The same figures for the simple advice group were 30 days each at 4, 8, and 12 weeks. The details are presented in Table 2 and diagrammatically represented in Figure 2.

Close

Figure 2:

Comparison of number of days of cannabis use in past month at different time intervals between brief intervention and simple advice group.

Export to PPT

The intragroup comparison showed that there were significant changes in scores at various assessment points in both groups. The intergroup comparison demonstrated a significant difference in the number of days of past-month cannabis use at 4, 8, and 12 weeks between the brief intervention and simple advice group (lower in the brief intervention group when compared with the simple advice group, P < 0.001, 0.002, and 0.049 at 4, 8, and 12 weeks, respectively).

The mean score of SDS at baseline, 4, 8, and 12 weeks in both groups is shown in Table 3. The intragroup comparison for the brief intervention group and simple advice group showed there was a significant reduction in SDS scores at various assessment points in both groups. The intergroup comparison for the brief intervention group and simple advice group found a significant interaction (between time and group), but group interaction was not significant, suggesting the present sample was not able to demonstrate a specific decrease in SDS scores attributable to the brief intervention.

No patient in either of the groups achieved complete abstinence from cannabis use at any of the time periods.

DISCUSSION

This study found that those individuals receiving one session of brief intervention had more reduction in the number of days of use of cannabis than those receiving simple advice. In the brief intervention group, the mean absolute percentage change in cannabis use days in the past month at 4 weeks was 12.5%, at 8 weeks about 9.3%, and at 12 weeks about 3.8%.

These findings are comparable to the previous studies. A RCT by Copeland et al.,^[27] conducted with treatment-seeking adults found that one session of cognitive behavioral therapy intervention (equivalent to a brief intervention session) showed a trend of a greater proportion of days of not using cannabis than a delayed treatment control group. Similarly, the study conducted by Marijuana Treatment Project Research Group.^[20] which evaluated the outcomes of two brief interventions for cannabis-dependent adults showed a greater reduction in the marijuana smoking days with two-session and nine-session treatments than delayed treatment control condition.

This study also compared the SDS scores at 4, 8, and 12 weeks across brief intervention and simple advice groups. There was a significant difference in SDS scores across the two groups over time. The decline in SDS scores in the two groups was comparable. These findings are comparable to the previous literature.^[28] This could be attributable to the fact that changes were minimal in both the groups and possibly simple advice might have resulted in some behavioral “impact.”

There were no participants in either group who were abstinent from cannabis use. This finding was contrary to what is reported in the previous literature.^[19,28] The explanation for this divergence could be participants using cannabis daily in the present study (compared to occasional users in the previous studies), and single session brief intervention being used in the present study.

The implications of the present study are several. One, brief intervention is a time-limited intervention approach that is scalable. Implementation of brief interventions is easier in a busy clinical setting like ours with high patient loads and limited time per patient. Second, a manualized brief intervention may be conducted by several types of mental health professionals during routine clinical encounters. The manual developed for the clinicians is available from the authors on request. Third, brief interventions for addressing cannabis use may be applicable for patients with other substance use disorders (mainly opioids).

A few limitations should be noted about the study. First, participants who were seeking help were selected; thus, the results may not generalize to persons who are unmotivated to seek treatment. Second, the study was conducted in the outpatient setting at a tertiary care center, and hence, it is difficult to comment on if the findings would be generalizable to patients with cannabis use disorder seeking treatment at other settings, such as community outreach clinics, or primary care centers. Third, the study was based on self-report of cannabis use, and no other measures such as urine screening or corroboration with collateral sources were used to confirm the cannabis use. Another limitation can be that this study was non-blinded which may have resulted in favorable outcomes for the intervention group. Furthermore, the presence of a high proportion of co-occurring substance use in both groups might have influenced some findings. Finally, this was based only on a single session delivered by a single professional. Multi-session intervention packages may have different results.

CONCLUSION

Despite the limitations, the present study suggests that brief intervention may help in reducing cannabis use among those with mild to moderate cannabis use disorder and using other substances. Regularly directed brief interventions to patients entering the treatment process may help to reduce cannabis usage. In the future, studies can be conducted to explore how the delivery of intervention could be improved, assess the impact of delivery by different professionals, and evaluate the impact of different substances on the outcomes.