Correlations and Agreement Between Delta9tetrahydrocannabinol (THC
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
bs_bs_banner RESEARCH REPORT doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03757.x Correlations and agreement between delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in blood plasma and timeline follow-back (TLFB)-assisted self-reported use of cannabis of patients with cannabis use disorder and psychotic illness attending the CapOpus randomized clinical trialadd_3757 1123..1131 Carsten Rygaard Hjorthøj1, Allan Fohlmann1, Anne-Mette Larsen1, Mikkel Arendt2 & Merete Nordentoft1 Mental Health Centre Copenhagen and Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen NV, Denmark1 and Unit for Psychiatric Research, Aalborg Psychiatric Hospital, Aarhus University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark2 ABSTRACT Aims To assess correlations and agreement between timeline follow-back (TLFB)-assisted self-report and blood samples for cannabis use. Design Secondary analysis of a randomized trial. Setting Copenhagen, Denmark. Participants One hundred and three patients from the CapOpus trial with cannabis use disorder and psychosis, providing 239 self-reports of cannabis use and 88 valid blood samples. Measurements Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), 11-hydroxy-delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (11-OH-THC) and 11-nor-delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol-9- carboxylic acid (THC-COOH) detected in plasma using high-performance liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry detection. Self-report of cannabis-use last month by TLFB. Pearson’s r, sensitivity and specificity calcu- lated as measures of correlation or agreement. Findings Correlations were strong; r = 0.75 for number of days and r = 0.83 for number of standard joints in the preceding month when excluding outliers. Including outliers, coefficients were moderate to strong (r = 0.49). There were differences in subgroups, mainly inconsistent, depending on inclusion or exclusion of outliers. Sensitivity and specificity for TLFB detecting the presence or absence of cannabis use were 95.7% [95% confidence interval (CI) 88.0–99.1%) and 72.2% (95% CI 46.5–90.3%), respectively. Using 19 days as cut-off on TLFB, they were 94.3% (95% CI 86.0–98.4%) and 94.4% (95% CI 72.2–99.9%), respectively.Area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was 0.96. Conclusions Timeline follow-back (TLFB)-assisted self-report of cannabis use correlates highly with plasma-delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in patients with comorbid cannabis use disorder and psychosis. Sensitivity and specificity of timeline follow-back appear to be optimized with 19 days as the cut-off point. As such, timeline follow-back may be superior to analysis of blood when going beyond 19 days of recall. Keywords Agreement, cannabis, correlation, dual diagnosis, psychosis, THC, timeline follow-back, validity. Correspondence to: Carsten Rygaard Hjorthøj, Mental Health Centre Copenhagen and Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Bispebjerg Bakke 23, Building 13A, 2400 Copenhagen NV, Denmark. E-mail: [email protected] Submitted 12 August 2011; initial review completed 21 September 2011; final version accepted 6 December 2011 INTRODUCTION disorders [2]. Cannabis use in psychotic populations is associated with poorer prognosis and treatment outcome Cannabis is the most widely used illicit substance in the [3–7]. As such, both determination and quantification of world [1], and its use and abuse are especially prevalent the substance is of high importance to practitioners and in psychiatric populations, e.g. patients with psychotic researchers. Two common ways to assess cannabis use © 2011 The Authors, Addiction © 2011 Society for the Study of Addiction Addiction, 107, 1123–1131 1124 Carsten Rygaard Hjorthøj et al. are retrospective self-report and biological matrices such self-reported use of cannabis. The TLFB (and other as blood or urine. Instruments and techniques exist that assessment instruments) was administered by a trained aim to improve reliability of self-reported cannabis use. interviewer. One such instrument is the manual-based timeline Other information was collected at these three inter- follow-back (TLFB), which uses a visual calendar to views, and in the present investigation these are used to enhance recall [8]. In a systematic review and meta- conduct subgroup analyses. This included measures of analysis we showed that TLFB validly assesses illicit sub- psychopathology (Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale stance use compared to biological samples [9]. However, for Schizophrenia—PANSS) [18], Manchester Short particularly for cannabis, some studies reported sub- Assessment of Quality of Life (MANSA) [19], the World optimal agreement between TLFB and urine [10,11]. In Health Organization’s Disability Assessment Schedules addition, most of the validation in the review was based (WHODAS-II) [20] and cognitive tests including the on determination rather than quantification of cannabis Hopkins Verbal Learning Test (HVLT) [21] and Trail use, and no studies used blood for validation, even though Making Tests A and B [22]. blood holds advantages over both urine and hair for this purpose [12]. Finally, the meta-analysis showed slightly Self-reported cannabis use lower agreement rates in the presence of psychiatric By means of the TLFB instrument, self-reported cannabis comorbidity. use was assessed for the past 30 days. This length of time Training raters to use a manual-based instrument was appropriate in terms of the randomized trial, in such as TLFB is cheaper than using blood. Blood samples which the primary aim was to reduce cannabis use. For require the use of a laboratory, and often storage facilities that purpose, a longer retrospective period would not such as freezers. Also, cannabis is detectable even in have been of interest. Patients were asked to provide blood for a limited time, varying from hours to at least a information on events such as birthdays, parties, out- week post-abstinence in chronic users [13,14]. Similarly, patient treatment visits, visits to the dealer, visits to or 11-nor-delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol-9-carboxylic acid from friends, etc. This information was entered into the (THC-COOH) detection times have been reported as TLFB calendar and used to enhance recall by use of ques- ranging in one study from 3.5 to 74.3 hours [15] to 25 tions along the lines of: ‘on the day you visited your days in a case study of a chronic cannabis user [12]. mother two weeks ago, did you use any cannabis that Conversely, self-report is limited only by respondents’ day? And how about the days before and after, do you memory,which may allow for longer retrospective assess- remember?’. Information on cannabis use was sought to ment. Finally, even though formulas have been developed be specific regarding amount (e.g. number of joints) and to establish the quantities and frequencies of cannabis type (e.g. cannabis resin, sinsemilla). Only as a last resort use from blood [12,16], such information would be were typical amounts, frequencies or guesses used. From readily available from TLFB. this information, it was possible to establish number of The aim of the present study was to assess the corre- days with cannabis use in the preceding month and total lations and agreement between TLFB and blood samples amount of cannabis used. For the latter, amounts were for cannabis use in patients with comorbid cannabis use converted into ‘standard joints’, defined as 0.5 g of can- disorders and psychosis [17]. nabis resin. For more potent types of cannabis, e.g. sin- semilla, a factor of 1.5 was applied—this was the case for METHODS 13 subjects at baseline, three post-treatment and four at follow up. Subjects comprised the 103 participants in the CapOpus trial, full details of which regarding design and overall Blood samples results are reported elsewhere [17]. These patients provided 239 self-reports of cannabis use and 88 valid Each blood sample was obtained with a Vacuette® blood blood samples. Briefly, CapOpus was a randomized trial collection set into a 9-ml Vacuette® tube containing of a psychosocial intervention to treat cannabis abuse in potassium (K3) ethylenediamine tetraacetic acid (EDTA). people with both cannabis use disorder and psychosis Each sample was put immediately into a centrifuge to (the F2 section of ICD-10). Patients were randomized to isolate plasma, which was stored subsequently in a -80°C either treatment as usual (TAU) or CapOpus plus TAU freezer. Samples were analysed at Odense University Hos- for 6 months. Patients were interviewed at baseline, pital for delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and the post-treatment and at 4-month follow-up. Assessments metabolites 11-hydroxy-delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol included a detailed TLFB of self-reported cannabis use (11-OH-THC) and THC-COOH using high-performance in the past 30 days. Patients were also asked (but liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry not required) to provide a blood sample to validate detection (LC/MS/MS) [23–25]. Values were rounded to © 2011 The Authors, Addiction © 2011 Society for the Study of Addiction Addiction, 107, 1123–1131 TLFB versus THC in plasma 1125 the nearest integer, except for THC and 11-OH-THC false negatives (FN: negative TLFB, positive blood), true values below 0.5 ng/ml; as the detection limit reported by negatives (TN: both TLFB and blood negative), false posi- the laboratory was 0.2 ng/ml, values of these molecules tives (FP: positive TLFB, negative blood) and true positives below 0.2 ng/ml were rounded to 0 ng/ml, and between (TP: both TLFB and blood positive). From these propor- 0.2 ng/ml and 0.5 ng/ml were kept unchanged. We also TP tions we also calculated sensitivity (), specificity calculated the cannabis influence factor (CIF) [12], which TP+ FN is used in Germany to interpret acute effects in cases of TN TP driving while intoxicated, and with higher CIF indicating (), positive predictive value ()and nega- FP+ TN TP+ FP THC[] ng/ ml11−− OH THC[] ng/ ml TN + tive predictive value ()of TLFB. Exact binomial recent use: CIF = 314. 5 330.