Tag Archives: tetrahydrocannabinol

Cannabis reinforcement and dependence: role of the cannabinoid CB1 receptor.

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract

“Awareness of cannabis dependence as a clinically relevant issue has grown in recent years. Clinical and laboratory studies demonstrate that chronic marijuana smokers can experience withdrawal symptoms upon cessation of marijuana smoking and have difficulty abstaining from marijuana use. This paper will review data implicating the cannabinoid CB1 receptor in regulating the behavioral effects of Δ9-tetrahydrocannobinol (THC), the primary psycho-active component of cannabis, across a range of species. The behavioral effects that will be discussed include those that directly contribute to the maintenance of chronic marijuana smoking, such as reward, subjective effects, and the positive and negative reinforcing effects of marijuana, THC and synthetic cannabinoids. The role of the CB1 receptor in the development of marijuana dependence and expression of withdrawal will also be discussed. Lastly, treatment options that may alleviate withdrawal symptoms and promote marijuana abstinence will be considered.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2731704/

Adverse effects of cannabis. (2011)

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract

“Cannabis, Cannabis sativa L., is used to produce a resin that contains high levels of cannabinoids, particularly delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which are psychoactive substances. Although cannabis use is illegal in France and in many other countries, it is widely used for its relaxing or euphoric effects, especially by adolescents and young adults. What are the adverse effects of cannabis on health? During consumption? And in the long term? Does cannabis predispose users to the development of psychotic disorders? To answer these questions, we reviewed the available evidence using the standard Prescrire methodology. The long-term adverse effects of cannabis are difficult to evaluate. Since and associated substances, with or without the user’s knowledge. Tobacco and alcohol consumption, and particular lifestyles and behaviours are often associated with cannabis use. Some traits predispose individuals to the use of psychoactive substances in general. The effects of cannabis are dosedependent.The most frequently report-ed adverse effects are mental slowness, impaired reaction times, and sometimes accentuation of anxiety. Serious psychological disorders have been reported with high levels of intoxication. The relationship between poor school performance and early, regular, and frequent cannabis use seems to be a vicious circle, in which each sustains the other. Many studies have focused on the long-term effects of cannabis on memory, but their results have been inconclusive. There do not * About fifteen longitudinal cohort studies that examined the influence of cannabis on depressive thoughts or suicidal ideation have yielded conflicting results and are inconclusive. Several longitudinal cohort studies have shown a statistical association between psychotic illness and self-reported cannabis use. However, the results are difficult to interpret due to methodological problems, particularly the unknown reliability of self-reported data. It has not been possible to establish a causal relationship in either direction, because of these methodological limitations. In Australia, the marked increase in cannabis use has not been accompanied by an increased incidence of schizophrenia. On the basis of the available data, we cannot reach firm conclusions on whether or not cannabis use causes psychosis. It seems prudent to inform apparently vulnerable individuals that cannabis may cause acute psychotic decompensation, especially at high doses. Users can feel dependent on cannabis, but this dependence is usually psychological. Withdrawal symptoms tend to occur within 48 hours following cessation of regular cannabis use, and include increased irritability, anxiety, nervousness, restlessness, sleep difficulties and aggression. Symptoms subside within 2 to 12 weeks. Driving under the influence of cannabis doubles the risk of causing a fatal road accident. Alcohol consumption plays an even greater role. A few studies and a number of isolated reports suggest that cannabis has a role in the occurrence of cardiovascular adverse effects, especially in patients with coronary heart disease. Numerous case-control studies have investigated the role of cannabis in the incidence of some types of cancer. Its role has not been ruled out, but it is not possible to determine whether the risk is distinct from that of the tobacco with which it is often smoked. Studies that have examined the influence of cannabis use on the clinical course of hepatitis C are inconclusive. Alcohol remains the main toxic agent that hepatitis C patients should avoid. In practice, the adverse effects of low-level, recreational cannabis use are generally minor, although they can apparently be serious in vulnerable individuals. The adverse effects of cannabis appear overall to be less serious than those of alcohol, in terms of neuropsychological and somatic effects, accidents and violence.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21462790

Cannabis–1988.

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract

“In this updating review of research on cannabis particular attention has been paid to the increasing number of studies of the disposition of the components of cannabis in man, as well as possible effects on health. Specific binding sites for cannaboids have not been demonstrated. Approximately 80 metabolites of tetrahydrocannabiol (THC) have been discovered, of which 11-OH-THC is the main metabolite, but it contributes little to the overall effect when the drug is smoked or given intravenously. The minimum plasma level of THC associated with the psychotropic effect is 25 ng/ml. Cannabis may produce directly an acute panic reaction, a toxic delirium, and acute paranoid state, or acute mania. Cannabis use may aggrevate schizophrenia, but it is much less certain whether it can lead to sociopathy or even to “amotivational syndrome”. Despite widespread use of cannabis in virtually all parts of the world, no catastrophic effects on health have been noted. Cannabis appears to be relatively safe as compared with current social drugs. It is, however, still too early in the history of the present episode of cannabis use to be sanguine about possible bad effects.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2852450

Substitution profile of the cannabinoid agonist nabilone in human subjects discriminating δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol.

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract

“OBJECTIVES:

The central effects of Δ-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ-THC), the primary active constituent of cannabis, are attributed to cannabinoid CB1 receptor activity, although clinical evidence is limited. Drug discrimination has proven useful for examining the neuropharmacology of drugs, as data are concordant with the actions of a drug at the receptor level. The aim of this study was to determine the profile of behavioral and physiological effects of the cannabinoid agonist nabilone in humans trained to discriminate Δ-THC.

METHODS:

Six cannabis users learned to identify when they received oral Δ-THC (25 mg) or placebo and then received a range of doses of the cannabinoid agonists nabilone (1, 2, 3, and 5 mg) and Δ-THC (5, 10, 15, and 25 mg). The dopamine reuptake inhibitor methylphenidate (5, 10, 20, and 30 mg) was included as a negative control. Subjects completed the Multiple-Choice Procedure, and self-report, task performance, and physiological measures were collected.

RESULTS:

Nabilone shared discriminative-stimulus effects with the training dose of Δ-THC, produced subject-rated drug effects that were comparable to those of Δ-THC, and increased heart rate. Methylphenidate did not engender Δ-THC-like discriminative-stimulus effects.

CONCLUSIONS:

These data demonstrate that the interoceptive effects of nabilone are similar to Δ-THC in cannabis users. The overlap in their behavioral effects is likely due to their shared mechanism as CB1 receptor agonists. Given the relative success of agonist replacement therapy to manage opioid, tobacco, and stimulant dependence, these results also support the evaluation of nabilone as a potential medication for cannabis-use disorders.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20838217

Antiemetic effect of tetrahydrocannabinol. Compared with placebo and prochlorperazine in chemotherapy-associated nausea and emesis.

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract

“Fifty-five patients harboring a variety of neoplasms and previously found to have severe nausea or emesis from antitumor drugs were given antiemetic prophylaxis in a double-blind, randomized, crossover fashion. Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), prochlorperazine, and placebo were compared. Nausea was absent in 40 of 55 patients receiving THC, eight of 55 patients receiving prochlorperazine, and five of 55 in the placebo group.

The antiemetic effect of THC appeared to be more efficacious for cyclophosphamide, fluorouracil, and doxorubicin hydrochloride, and less so for mechlorethamine hydrochloride and the nitrosureas.

Tetrahydrocannabinol appears to offer significant control of nausea in most patients and exceeding by far that provided by prochlorperazine.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6254456

 

Regulation of nausea and vomiting by cannabinoids.

Posted on by
1

“Anti-emetic effects of cannabinoids in human clinical trials”

  “Considerable evidence demonstrates that manipulation of the endocannabinoid system regulates nausea and vomiting in humans and other animals. The anti-emetic effect of cannabinoids has been shown across a wide variety of animals that are capable of vomiting in response to a toxic challenge. CB1 agonism suppresses vomiting, which is reversed by CB1 antagonism, and CB1 inverse agonism promotes vomiting. Recently, evidence from animal experiments suggests that cannabinoids may be especially useful in treating the more difficult to control symptoms of nausea and anticipatory nausea in chemotherapy patients, which are less well controlled by the currently available conventional pharmaceutical agents. Although rats and mice are incapable of vomiting, they display a distinctive conditioned gaping response when re-exposed to cues (flavours or contexts) paired with a nauseating treatment. Cannabinoid agonists (Δ9-THC, HU-210) and the fatty acid amide hydrolase (FAAH) inhibitor, URB-597, suppress conditioned gaping reactions (nausea) in rats as they suppress vomiting in emetic species. Inverse agonists, but not neutral antagonists, of the CB1 receptor promote nausea, and at subthreshold doses potentiate nausea produced by other toxins (LiCl). The primary non-psychoactive compound in cannabis, cannabidiol (CBD), also suppresses nausea and vomiting within a limited dose range. The anti-nausea/anti-emetic effects of CBD may be mediated by indirect activation of somatodendritic 5-HT1A receptors in the dorsal raphe nucleus; activation of these autoreceptors reduces the release of 5-HT in terminal forebrain regions. Preclinical research indicates that cannabinioids, including CBD, may be effective clinically for treating both nausea and vomiting produced by chemotherapy or other therapeutic treatments.”

“The cannabis plant has been used for several centuries for a number of therapeutic applications, including the attenuation of nausea and vomiting. Ineffective treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting prompted oncologists to investigate the anti-emetic properties of cannabinoids in the late 1970s and early 1980s, before the discovery of the 5-HT3 antagonists. The first cannabinoid agonist, nabilone (Cesamet), which is a synthetic analogue of Δ9-THC was specifically licensed for the suppression of nausea and vomiting produced by chemotherapy. Furthermore, synthetic Δ9-THC, dronabinol, entered the clinic as Marinol in 1985 as an anti-emetic and in 1992 as an appetite stimulant. In these early studies, several clinical trials compared the effectiveness of Δ9-THC with placebo or other anti-emetic drugs. Comparisons of oral Δ9-THC with existing anti-emetic agents generally indicated that Δ9-THC was at least as effective as the dopamine antagonists, such as prochlorperazine.”

“There is some evidence that cannabis-based medicines may be effective in treating the more difficult to control symptoms of nausea and delayed nausea and vomiting in children. Abrahamov et al. (1995) evaluated the anti-emetic effectiveness of Δ8-THC, a close but less psychoactive relative of Δ9-THC, in children receiving chemotherapy treatment. Two hours before the start of each cancer treatment and every six hours thereafter for 24 h, the children were given Δ8-THC as oil drops on the tongue or in a bite of food. After a total of 480 treatments, the only side effects reported were slight irritability in two of the youngest children (3.5 and 4 years old); both acute and delayed nausea and vomiting were controlled.”

“Chemotherapy-induced vomiting is well controlled in most patients by conventionally available drugs, nausea (acute, delayed and anticipatory) continues to be a challenge. Nausea is often reported as more distressing than vomiting, because it is a continuous sensation. Indeed, this distressing symptom of chemotherapy treatment (even when vomiting is pharmacologically controlled) can become so severe that as many as 20% of patients discontinue the treatment. Both preclinical and human clinical research suggests that cannabinoid compounds may have promise in treating nausea in chemotherapy patients.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3165951/

Mechanism of action of cannabinoids: how it may lead to treatment of cachexia, emesis, and pain.

Posted on by
Reply

Image result for The Journal of Supportive Oncology

“Many patients with life-threatening diseases such as cancer experience severe symptoms that compromise their health status and deny them quality of life. Patients with cancer often experience cachexia, pain, and depression,which translate into an unacceptable quality of life. The discovery of the endocannabinoid system has led to a renewed interest in the use of cannabinoids for the management of nausea, vomiting, and weight loss arising either from cancer or the agents used to treat cancer. The endocannabinoid system has been found to be a key modulator of systems involved in pain perception, emesis, and reward pathways. As such, it represents a target for development of new medications for controlling the symptoms associated with cancer. Although the cannabinoid receptor agonist tetrahydrocannabinol and one of its analogs are currently the only agents approved for clinical use, efforts are under way to devise other strategies for activating the endocannabinoid system for therapeutic uses.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15357514

Effects of marihuana cannabinoids on seizure activity in cobalt-epileptic rats.

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract

“Rats rendered chronically epileptic by bilateral implantation of cobalt into frontal cortices were simultaneously prepared with permanent electrodes for longitudinal recording of the electroencephalogram (EEG) and electromyogram (EMG). Delta-8-tetrahydrocannabinol (delta-8-THC; 10 mg/kg), delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (delta-9-THC; 10 mg/kg), cannabidiol (CBD; 60 mg/kg), or polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP) vehicle (2 ml/kg) was administered IP twice daily from day 7 through 10 after cobalt implantation, at which time generalized seizure activity in non-treated cobalt-epileptic rats was maximal. Relative to PVP-treated controls, CBD did not alter the frequency of appearance of seizures during the course of repeated administration. In contrast, both delta-8-THC and delta-9-THC markedly reduced the incidence of seizures on the first and second days of administration. Interictal spiking during this period, on the other hand, was actually enhanced. On the third and fourth days, tolerance to the effect on seizures was evident, with a return of seizure frequency of THC-treated rats to values not significantly different from those of controls. Unlike the effect on seizures, no tolerance developed to the marked suppression of rapid eye movement (REM) sleep induces by delta-8-THC and delta-9-THC. REM sleep remained reduced in the treated animals during the first 2 days after termination of THC administration. In contrast, REM sleep time was unaffected by repeated administration of CBD. These results suggest that delta-8-THC and delta-9-THC exert their initial anticonvulsant effect by limiting the spread of epileptogenic activity originating from the cobalt focus.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6280204

The influence of cannabidiol and delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol on cobalt epilepsy in rats.

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract

“The mechanisms of the anticonvulsant activity of cannabidiol (CBD) and the central excitation of delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol (delta 9-THC) were investigated electrophysiologically with conscious, unrestrained cobalt epileptic rats. The well-known antiepileptics, trimethadione (TMO), ethosuximide (ESM), and phenytoin (PHT), were included as reference drugs. Direct measurements were made of spontaneously firing, epileptic potentials from a primary focus on the parietal cortex and convulsions were monitored visually. ESM and TMO decreased the frequency of focal potentials, but PHT and CBD exerted no such effect. Although CBD did not suppress the focal abnormality, it did abolish jaw and limb clonus; in contrast, delta 9-THC markedly increased the frequency of focal potentials, evoked generalized bursts of polyspikes, and produced frank convlusions. 11-OH-delta 9-THC, the major metabolite of delta 9-THC, displayed only one of the excitatory properties of the parent compound: production of bursts of polyspikes. In contrast to delta 9-THC and its 11-OH metabolite, CBD, even in very high doses, did not induce any excitatory effects or convulsions. The present study provides the first evidence that CBD exerts anticonvulsant activity against the motor manifestations of a focal epilepsy, and that the mechanism of the effect may involve a depression of seizure generation or spread in the CNS.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/113206

Cannabidiol–antiepileptic drug comparisons and interactions in experimentally induced seizures in rats.

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract

“A comparison of the anticonvulsant and neurotoxic effects of cannabidiol (CBD), delta 9tetrahydrocannabinol, cannabinol and antiepileptic drugs (phenytoin, phenobarbital, carbamazepine, chlordiazepoxide, clonazepam, ethosuximide and trimethadione) was made in rats. Median effective potencies (ED 50 values) for maximal electroshock, audiogenic seizures and TD50 values for a rotor rod neurotoxicity test were calculated. Additionally, the interactive effects of CBD and the antiepileptic drugs against maximal electroshock and audiogenic seizures were studied. Each drug was given orally at peak effect time. CBD was an effective and relatively potent anticonvulsant in both maximal electroshock and audiogenic seizure tests. The anticonvulsant potency of phenytoin was significantly increased when combined with phenobarbital, CBD and phenobarbital plus CBD. Additionally, CBD reliably reduced the anticonvulsant potencies of chlordiazepoxide, clonazepam, trimethadione and ethosuximide. These data indicate that CBD is an effective anticonvulsant with a specificity more comparable to drugs clinically effective in major than minor seizures. Furthermore, it appears that CBD enhances the anticonvulsant effects of the former and reduces the effects of the latter types of antiepileptic drugs.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/850145