4.1 Article

Cocaine Dependence and Concurrent Marijuana Use: A Comparison of Clinical Characteristics

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF DRUG AND ALCOHOL ABUSE
Volume 35, Issue 3, Pages 193-198

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/00952990902933860

Keywords

Clinical treatment trial; cocaine dependence; dual substance abuse; marijuana

Funding

  1. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON DRUG ABUSE [K99DA023548, P50DA009262] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NIDA NIH HHS [P50 DA009262, K99 DA023548-02, K99 DA023548, P50-DA9262] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background/Objectives: Marijuana is the most commonly used illicit substance, yet among the least studied in medication development research. Cocaine-dependent individuals frequently also use marijuana; however, little is known about the effect of this combined use on treatment presentation. Methods: Marijuana use was assessed in 1183 individuals seeking outpatient treatment for cocaine dependence. Based on past 30 days of use, the sample was divided into three groups: (1) patients reporting no recent marijuana use (n = 634); (2) occasional use (n = 403); (3) and frequent concurrent marijuana use (n = 146). Differences on baseline measures of substance use, addiction severity (ASI), psychopathology, and sociodemographic characteristics were examined as a function of level of marijuana use. Results: Frequent marijuana users were more likely to be female, Caucasian, and younger than other groups. Cocaine-dependent patients with frequent marijuana use also used more cocaine and alcohol, and reported more medical, legal, and psychiatric problems, including antisocial personality disorder. Conclusion and Scientific Significance: Cocaine-dependent patients with frequent marijuana use present for treatment with more severe impairment. Accounting for this heterogeneity among participants may improve treatment outcome.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available