Risk-thresholds for the association between frequency of cannabis use and the development of psychosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Robinson et al.·Psychological medicineImpact 4.3
Klarer NutzenGRADEHoch60 Zitate
Stichprobek = 10 Studien n = 7.390 Pat.
DauerStudienzeitraum
KontrolleKein oder seltenerer Cannabiskonsum
EndpunktPsychoseentwicklung
Verblindungunklar
DesignMeta-Analyse
”Kernaussage
Meta-Analyse zeigt signifikant erhöhtes Psychose-Risiko bei wöchentlicher oder häufigerer Cannabisnutzung (RR=1,35-1,76), aber kein signifikantes Risiko bei seltenerer Nutzung.
Zusammenfassung
Systematische Review + Dosis-Respons-Meta-Analyse über k=10 Studien (3 Kohorten, 7 Fall-Kontroll, n=7.390, Alter 12–65 Jahre); signifikante log-lineare Dosis-Respons-Beziehung zwischen Cannabis-Konsum-Häufigkeit und Psychose-Risiko. Restricted-cubic-splines-Modell zeigt Risiko-Schwellen: RR=1,35 (95% CI 1,19–1,52) bei wöchentlichem Konsum, RR=1,76 (95% CI 1,47–2,12) bei täglichem Konsum; kein signifikantes Risiko bei <wöchentlichem Konsum (RR=1,01 jährlich, RR=1,10 monatlich).
P
PopulationPersonen im Alter von 12–65 Jahren mit unterschiedlicher Cannabisnutzungsfrequenz, gepoolt n=7390
Background: Epidemiological studies show a dose-response association between cannabis use and the risk of psychosis. This review aimed to determine whether there are identifiable risk-thresholds between the frequency of cannabis use and psychosis development.
Methods: Systematic search of Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Web of Science for relevant studies (1 January 2010-26 April 2021). Case-control or cohort studies that investigated the relationship between cannabis use and the risk of psychosis development that reported effect estimates [odds ratios (OR), hazard ratios (HR), risk ratios (RR)] or the raw data to calculate them, with information on the frequency of cannabis consumption were included. Effect estimates were extracted from individual studies and converted to RR. Two-stage dose-response multivariable meta-analytic models were utilized and sensitivity analyses conducted. The Newcastle Ottawa Scale was used to assess the risk of bias of included studies.
Results: Ten original (three cohorts, seven case-control) studies were included, including 7390 participants with an age range of 12-65 years. Random-effect model meta-analyses showed a significant log-linear dose-response association between cannabis use frequency and psychosis development. A restricted cubic-splines model provided the best fit for the data, with the risk of psychosis significantly increasing for weekly or more frequent cannabis use [RR = 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93-1.11 yearly; RR = 1.10, 95% CI 0.97-1.25 monthly; RR = 1.35, 95% CI 1.19-1.52 weekly; RR = 1.76, 95% CI 1.47-2.12 daily].
Conclusion: Individuals using cannabis frequently are at increased risk of psychosis, with no significant risk associated with less frequent use. Public health prevention messages should convey these risk-thresholds, which should be refined through further work.