Responses to Is Cognitive Functioning Impaired in Methamphetamine Users? A Critical Review
Introduction
Methamphetamine (MA), often colloquially known equally ice or crystal meth, is a highly addictive derivative of amphetamine and has been increasing in illicit use within Commonwealth of australia (ane). Between 1999 and 2017 a 4-fold increase in MA deaths was observed (2), with an estimated $v billion societal cost relating to MA use in 2013 to 2014 (3). The acute effects of MA use include euphoria, increased alacrity, hyper excitability, restlessness, and insomnia, while physiological furnishings include hypertension, vasoconstriction, and tachycardia (4). At the withdrawal stage, effects include dysphoria, depression, irritability, anxiety, poor concentration, hypersomnia, fatigue, paranoia, and craving (4). Collectively, these symptoms can take significant implications for everyday functioning in those with recurrent or dependent use. At a neurological level, MA acts on monoamine neurotransmitters including predominantly dopamine, and to a lesser extent serotonin and noradrenaline, which have widespread projections throughout the brain (5). As such, it has been proposed that MA can have neurotoxic furnishings via interacting mechanisms relating to hyperthermia, oxidative stress, toxic metabolites, neuroinflammation, and high cortisol levels (6). Therefore, a particular business regarding the increasing prevalence of MA use is the affect that this may take on neuropsychological performance in heavy or dependent users.
In applied terms, establishing the longer term neuropsychological furnishings of MA apply is complicated by several clinical realities within the field of addiction. The first is that individuals with Alcohol and Other Drug (AOD) use disorders often present many years after commencing employ, such equally xviii–20 years for alcohol (7), and consequently they rarely present with isolated issues. For instance, physical and psychiatric comorbidity is commonly observed in AOD cohorts (8). Secondly polysubstance use is considered the norm within these cohorts rather than the exception, with individuals ofttimes using multiple substances concurrently or having a history of using multiple substances over their lifetime (8, 9). Every bit such, isolating the effects of one particular substance amongst others is inherently challenging.
These issues have been highlighted by several meta-analytic reviews which have attempted to elucidate the neuropsychological furnishings of MA use with mixed conclusions (10–12). The most recent of these identified small to moderate group deficits in several cerebral domains including learning efficiency, visual-spatial processing, comprehension, retrieval fluency, processing and psychomotor speed in abstinent MA users (10). Within each of these reviews is the clear observation that many of the included studies did not control for or written report factors such as comorbid mental health conditions, premorbid IQ, alcohol or other substance use and duration of forbearance, all of which could have a confounding impact upon noesis (10, xi). Consideration of these broader contextual factors within research on individuals who apply MA is critical given their high prevalence inside substance using cohorts and the potential associations with cognitive functioning. For example, neurodevelopmental difficulties and reduced educational attainment are normally observed within polysubstance using cohorts, which can business relationship for aspects of cerebral operation on cess (thirteen, 14). Similarly, emotional distress and psychiatric conditions accept well established links with reduced cognitive functioning (xv–17) and these weather are oft observed in substance using groups (18). In a recent study exploring the biopsychosocial predictors of neuropsychological functioning in a sample of treatment seeking substance users with cerebral concerns, factors including basic demographics, prescribed sedating medications, emotional distress, and formal diagnoses of acquired brain injury and neurodevelopmental conditions were found to have independent contributions to aspects of neuropsychological functioning (19). Despite the known impacts of broader contextual factors upon knowledge in polysubstance groups more more often than not, there even so continues to exist a limited appreciation or recognition of the impact of pre-existing, comorbid, and/or modifiable adventure factors for cerebral impairment in heavy MA-users.
In order to get-go addressing the limitations of prior work in MA cohorts, and proceed to identifying strategies that could be applied in clinical settings, the experiences of cognitive harm in MA users (or more realistically described as "MA-polydrug users" from hither on) and the context in which these difficulties occur need to be informed by existent world clinical data. Work of this nature has already been conducted for booze use where there is a well-established evidence base of operations for the long term deleterious effects heavy alcohol apply on noesis (20, 21). These furnishings include persistent long term deficits in exact learning, verbal memory, speed of processing and executive function (21), with chronic and farthermost levels of use placing individuals at risk of sustaining alcohol related dementia (20). Furthermore, several key take a chance factors for sustaining cognitive impairment in booze using cohorts have been well-described, including older age, poorer general health and nutritional deficiency, chronic exposure and repeated withdrawal episodes (22–25). Crucially, awareness of these risk factors enables clinicians to implement appropriate harm reduction strategies where required. Given the availability of this bear witness base and the known neurotoxic nature of alcohol, comparing the biopsychosocial profiles of MA-polydrug users to an alcohol only group would be benign in contextualizing the severity of any observed cognitive impairments and potentially inform treatment practices by identifying commonly occurring modifiable hazard factors.
Therefore, the aim of this study was to conduct a comparing of the biopsychosocial and neuropsychological profiles of individuals with histories of heavy daily MA utilise as office of a broader substance use history (MA-polydrug grouping) and those reporting a history of only booze use (alcohol group). Based on existing literature, we predicted that individuals within the alcohol grouping would perform worse on all measures of cerebral functioning than individuals in the MA-polydrug group. While some caste of equivalence nosotros expected between groups in terms of demographics and clinical comorbidities, this chemical element of the study remained exploratory.
Methods
Setting
The Turning Point Addiction Neuropsychology Service is a government funded community-based service and is one of the specialist clinical services provided by Turning Point, a national addiction treatment and research center based in Melbourne, Australia. The clinic accepts referrals from customs-based sources including corrections, drug and booze, mental health, general practice and instance management services. Referrals range in complexity and include diagnostic queries in addition to assessments to support funding applications or inform treatment and care provision. To ensure referral ceremoniousness and service eligibility, all referrals are screened and triaged by clinical neuropsychologists. Further information regarding the service model has been previously described (14).
Pattern
This study was a retrospective case file audit conducted following ethical approval from the Eastern Health Human Research Ethics Committee (Ref: LR88/2017).
Participants
Participant information were extracted from an existing database of individuals seen for a neuropsychological assessment between Baronial 2014 and December 2019. Only participants who had consented to having their data used for research purposes at the time of their neuropsychological assessment were included in the electric current study. Inclusion criteria for the service is that clients are aged over eighteen and present with a meaning past or current AOD history. Exclusion criteria for the service include referrals for conclusion making capacity or physician-legal purposes. For the MA-polydrug group, the database was reviewed to identify individuals who reported a lifetime history of at least 1 year of daily or near daily MA use in addition to providing valid test results on their neuropsychological assessment. Cess validity was adamant by the combination of clinical observation of exam taking beliefs and embedded measures of endeavour, with formal measures of validity being administered where there was an emerging suspicion of poor endeavor. With the overwhelming majority of individuals reporting daily use of at least one other substance, no exclusion criteria regarding alcohol or other substance utilize were set and so this group was defined every bit a MA-using polydrug group comprising 40 individuals.
For the alcohol group, the database was screened for individuals who met the following criteria i) reported a lifetime history of daily alcohol apply and two) reported no other meaning illicit substance utilise histories (east.thousand., cannabis, amphetamines, or heroin) autonomously from once off or occasional experimental use, and three) provided valid examination results on their neuropsychological cess. This yielded a final sample of 27 individuals.
Measures
Data sources for the current study included data obtained from the comprehensive clinical histories taken during the assessment in addition to reviews of available medical records, neuropsychological test information, and clinical diagnoses, all of which were summarized in a client's neuropsychological assessment report. The following information was extracted: demographics including age, gender, years of formal education, offending history; medical history including: Hepatitis C condition, the presence of a diagnosed Acquired Brain Injury (ABI) or neurodevelopmental weather condition [eastward.1000., intellectual disability, specific learning or linguistic communication disabilities, and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)]; psychiatric comorbidities including histories of circuitous trauma (from babyhood or machismo), diagnosed atmospheric condition, suicidal ideation, and substance use histories. Medication allaying load was calculated using the Allaying Load Index (26–28), where medications are grouped according to their sedating properties and given a score of ii (primary sedatives), one (sedation as an adverse outcome or medications with a sedating component), or 0 (no sedating backdrop). A total sedative load score was derived by summing the rating scores for each medication prescribed to the individual.
Alcohol and Substance Use
Measures of alcohol and substance apply included age of first use, years of use, and days of abstinence (i.e., difference between reported last substance utilize and solar day of cess). Weekly alcohol apply was recorded in terms of the number of standard drinks estimated to be consumed during a participant's heaviest menstruum of alcohol use (29). This approach was taken to provide an indicator of the potential lifetime neurotoxic burden of alcohol utilize and risk of associated long term cognitive difficulty every bit opposed to recording recent use which may non exist reflective of this take a chance (twenty). Sources for this data included available medical records and self-written report during clinical interview at the time of cess. In addition, for individuals in the MA polydrug group, details regarding their age of first use of MA, length of use, heaviest daily dose, and period of any forbearance was also recorded. Finally, current and lifetime frequencies of other substance utilize including cannabis, heroin, inhalants, GHB and hallucinogens were noted.
Neuropsychological Assessment
As part of assessment, a comprehensive neuropsychological bombardment was administered with measures being selected at the discretion of the treating neuropsychologist. Due to variability in the cess batteries administered by clinicians, just the about consistently administered tests sampling the major cognitive domains were extracted from client records for the current report (Table 1). The most unremarkably administered measures included the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale Fourth Edition (31, 32) with prorated index scores for total scale IQ, exact intellectual functioning, nonverbal intellectual performance and data processing speed existence utilized. The digit span subtest was selected as a measure of working retentiveness in the absence of the working memory index being consistently available. Similarly, the logical retentiveness subtest from the Wechsler Memory Scale Quaternary Edition (31, 32) was utilized as a measure of verbal retentivity as this was frequently administered whereas other list learning tasks were utilized more interchangeably depending on clinical need. Other key assessment measures included the Rey Complex Figure Test (33) with the xxx min trial employed equally a measure of visual memory, the Trail Making Exam (39), Victorian Stroop test (38), Controlled Oral Give-and-take Clan Test (38) and the Test of Premorbid Functioning (30). Emotional distress was measured using the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scales (DASS) 21 Item version (37). All measures administered are routinely employed in clinical practice, well validated, reliable, and sensitive to changes in cognitive operation as indicated by their inclusion in neuropsychological test compendia (38, xl). The post-obit descriptors are used by our service to classify cognitive performances relative to normative data: Very Superior (98th percentile and above); Superior (91st to 97th percentile); High Boilerplate (75th to 90thursday percentile); Boilerplate (25th to 74th percentile); Depression Average (9th to 24thursday percentile); Borderline (2nd to viiith percentile); and Extremely Low (<2nd percentile) (31, 32). For case, if a score falls at the 80th percentile, the person has performed better on that task than 80 people out of 100. For further data on test interpretation and the relationships between standardized scores, percentiles and standard deviations refer to Strauss and colleagues (38).
Table ane. Neuropsychological assessment measures, variables used and normative data.
Process
All instance files for individuals seen for assessment and who consented to their information being utilized for research during the audit period were reviewed by clinical neuropsychologists, de-identified, and relevant data including client histories, cess results, and clinical diagnoses were extracted into a database. As per standard clinical practice, raw scores from neuropsychological assessment results were converted into scaled scores or z scores using age corrected normative data.
Data Analysis
All variables met the assumption of normality, with the exception of age of get-go utilise, weekly alcohol use, and days of forbearance. For between grouping comparisons of categorical variables, Chi square tests of independence were used. Where the assumption of minimum cell sizes for Chi square tests was not met, Fischer's verbal tests were utilized. For all continuous variables, independent measures t-tests were conducted to evaluate between group differences. For the three variables that did not see the supposition of normality, Mann Whitney U tests were utilized as the nonparametric equivalent. Effect sizes (Cohen's d) were calculated using t and df values for between group measures. The blastoff was gear up at 0.05 and all analyses, were two sided and conducted in SPSS Version 28 (41). A ability analysis using G*ability 3 for the master between group analysis indicated that an Due north of 52 was required to detect large furnishings with a power of 0.eight and blastoff of 0.05 (42).
Results
Demographics
Participant characteristics and clinical comorbidity data for each group are presented in Table 2. At the time of cess, individuals in the MA-polydrug group were significantly younger than individuals in the booze group, with a mean of 34 years compared to a mean of 49 years, respectively. The MA-polydrug group had a significantly higher proportion of males than the alcohol group. No significant differences in education were observed with both groups completing an average of xi years of formal education. Education levels of Grade 10 or less formed the bulk in both groups. A significantly higher proportion of individuals in the MA-polydrug group reported an offending history and within this, 42.5% were noted to have to a vehement, as opposed to irenic, offending history.
Table 2. Participant characteristics and clinical comorbidity.
Medical and Psychiatric Comorbidity
As expected, a high degree of formally diagnosed medical and psychiatric comorbidity was observed within both groups. Rates of formal mental health diagnoses were equivalent across groups overall, with depression and feet being the most common presenting weather condition. For the MA-polydrug group this was followed by experiences of psychotic symptoms and postal service-traumatic stress disorder while in the booze grouping, bipolar and psychotic episodes were the next most common conditions. Every bit shown in Table 2, in both groups, a high proportion endorsed a history of suicidal ideation and experiences of trauma with no differences between groups for either suicidal ideation or trauma. No significant differences were observed between groups in terms of self-reported experiences of depression, anxiety, and stress on the DASS. Of note, the hateful reported scores for each domain of the DASS ranged between the moderate to severe ranges (e.g., 14–27 for depression and 10–19 for feet) for both groups indicating, on average, individuals were experiencing clinically significant symptoms of emotional distress at the time of their assessment.
No pregnant differences in the presence of a formally diagnosed neurodevelopmental condition (east.m., ADHD, learning, language or intellectual disability) was observed between groups, with ~20% in each group having a formal diagnosis. Of those without a formal diagnosis, a neurodevelopmental condition was strongly suspected, merely non formally diagnosed, in 10% of cases in each group. Equivalent rates of ABI risk factors and diagnoses were observed betwixt groups. Finally, a higher proportion of individuals in the MA-polydrug grouping reported by or current diagnosis of Hepatitis C, whereas individuals in the Booze group had significantly higher sedative medication loads.
Substance Use
In comparison to the alcohol group, individuals in the MA-polydrug grouping reported a significantly earlier age of onset of substance use, with the MA-polydrug group commencing substances at a mean of 14 years of age compared to 19 years in the booze group. Consistent with the booze grouping being significantly older than the MA-polydrug grouping, individuals in the alcohol group reported significantly longer durations of substance apply. Individuals in the booze group too reported significantly more alcohol consumed on a weekly basis during their heaviest catamenia of use than the MA grouping. No differences in days of abstinence prior to neuropsychological cess between groups were observed. In terms of risk of impairment from substance use, equally shown in Table ii, a significantly college proportion of individuals in the MA grouping had overdosed, while no individuals in the alcohol group reported intravenous substance use in the past, compared to 32.v% of the MA-polydrug grouping.
For the MA-polydrug group, the average age of first employ of methamphetamine was 23 years and 55% reported a history of use >five years. The boilerplate daily amount consumed during the heaviest period of utilize was 1.2 grams a twenty-four hour period and the median days of abstinence since last utilise was 30 days. Furthermore, in addition to MA use, individuals in the MA-polydrug group reported an extensive history of polysubstance use (Tabular array three). Nigh notably, but over half the group reported a history of daily or near daily alcohol and/or cannabis apply. Furthermore, regular use of heroin, GHB, and ecstasy was also noted. Volatile inhalants, cocaine, hallucinogens, and ketamine utilise were less usually reported. With regard to current use, 10% reported drinking on a daily or near daily basis, and 20% reported regular or about daily cannabis use around the time of their assessment. Finally, 7.5% reported maintaining a electric current pattern of heroin utilise.
Table iii. Proportion of clients in the Methamphetamine Group who used/use booze or other illicit substances on a regular or daily basis.
Neuropsychological Performance
The results of group performances on measures of neuropsychological functioning are presented in Table four along with the normal reference ranges indicative of where fifty% of the general population would perform on these tasks based on normative data. As shown, for the MA-polydrug grouping hateful performances in the domains of verbal intellectual performance, nonverbal intellectual functioning, psychomotor tracking, and semantic exact fluency were within the Average range (i.e., within the 25th to 74th percentile and −0.6–0.six standard deviations away from the population mean). On the majority of the remaining measures, performances were beneath the normal reference range and roughshod in what would exist classified equally the Low Average range (i.e., 9th to 24thursday percentile and −1.iii to −0.half-dozen standard deviations from the mean) relative to the full general population. Furthermore, mean performances for visual memory and divided attention were well below the reference range falling with in the Borderline (i.e., twond to 8thursday percentile and −one.3 to −2.0 standard deviations from the mean) and Extremely Low ranges (i.due east., <2nd percentile and < -2.0 standard deviations from the mean). For the alcohol group, only the means for measures of verbal think and semantic verbal fluency were inside the normal reference range while hateful performances for measures of psychomotor tracking and divided attention were within the Borderline and Extremely Depression ranges. On all other domains, mean performances were within the Low Average range.
Tabular array iv. Mean neuropsychological cess scoresa.
With regard to betwixt group differences on standardized test scores, individuals in the MA-polydrug group performed significantly better than individuals in the alcohol group in the domains of overall IQ, psychomotor tracking, and semantic verbal fluency with medium effect sizes observed (Tabular array 4). No other pregnant differences between groups were observed.
Discussion
The aim of this report was to investigate the cognitive and biopsychosocial profiles of a grouping of individuals with a history of heavy MA use who presented to our specialist addiction neuropsychology service with cognitive concerns in comparing to individuals who reported only using alcohol. Overall, while some significant betwixt group differences were observed in basic demographic variables, substance use, and aspects of cognitive functioning, the majority of presentations were consistent across groups, particularly in terms of clinical comorbidity and diagnoses. Our hypothesis that individuals in the alcohol group would perform worse in all cognitive domains was only partially supported, with individuals in the alcohol group having significantly lower full scale IQ scores, and worse performances on measures of psychomotor tracking and semantic exact fluency, while no meaning differences were observed in the remaining cerebral domains.
Of note, both the alcohol and MA-polydrug groups performed beneath normative reference ranges beyond a variety of cognitive domains, highlighting the broad nature of the difficulties experienced past these individuals. Such reductions can take meaning functional implications for treatment engagement (43–45), as well as broader life participation. The finding that individuals in the alcohol group exhibited significantly lower overall total calibration IQ scores (despite no differences being observed on a mensurate of estimated premorbid operation) may reflect the generalized reductions in knowledge that could exist expected following extended periods of heavy daily alcohol use (21, 25). Beingness significantly older, individuals in this grouping as well presented with significantly longer durations of substance use which may also account for differences in this overall domain as both age and lifetime histories of alcohol dependence have been associated with increased take chances of cerebral impairment (25). Significantly slower psychomotor tracking performances, as measured past the Trail Making Test Office A (TMT-A), were likewise noted for the booze grouping in comparing to the MA-polydrug grouping. This is in accord with previous literature that has shown heavy drinking tin can have deleterious effects upon performance on this task (46). The difference in psychomotor tracking performances between groups may also be related to the significantly higher medication sedative loads in the booze group relative to the MA-polydrug group, which may accept slowed the speed of their responding more generally (47). Indeed, other speeded tasks (as per the Processing Speed Index) for the alcohol group tended to fall beneath same-aged peers, in the Borderline range, and whilst the difference did non reach significance betwixt groups, this does raise the possibility that slower speed in part contributed to poorer performance on TMT-A for these individuals (46). Of interest, both groups performed every bit poorly on the second part of this task (Trail Making Test-Part B, TMT-B) which includes executive and attentional switching components in addition to the speeded elements of the commencement part (38). When considering performances on TMT-B relative to TMT-A for both groups, these findings might suggest that those in the MA-polydrug grouping in particular were having more than difficulty with specific aspects of executive performance and attentional switching (over and in a higher place psychomotor tracking), whereas the alcohol cohort had more than generalized reductions across domains. Previous enquiry has highlighted reduced performances in these college order cognitive domains of executive functioning and attention in MA-polydrug users (10–12). Consistent with our previous work (xiv), the Trail Making Examination was the about sensitive to eliciting cognitive impairments with mean scores in both groups being over two standard deviations beneath normative data.
Despite being significantly younger than the alcohol group, the MA-polydrug grouping presented with largely similar cognitive profiles and comorbidities. This is of clinical business organisation, as information technology is non clear whether this places MA-polydrug users at risk of experiencing an accelerated trajectory of cognitive impairments due to cumulative factors over time, with potential for poorer overall outcomes at an earlier age than other groups. With individuals in the MA-polydrug group, on average, commencing substance use at a significantly before historic period and beyond a critical menses of neurodevelopmental maturation, this may further increase their risk of poorer neurological, psychiatric, and psychosocial outcome (48). In order to reduce risk of agin long term effects in this MA-polydrug group, access to early on intervention and supports is critical.
With regard to biopsychosocial factors, the most immediate and striking characteristic of the MA-polydrug group is that they are all-time described equally a polydrug group considering the high rates of alcohol, cannabis, and other substance employ noted in their histories and the findings of this study should be interpreted in that context. In order to obtain the most ecologically valid sample of MA users for this study, the only criteria for the MA-polydrug grouping were in relation to having a lifetime history of daily MA use for over 12 months. With the overwhelming majority reporting use of other substances apart from MA, the current sample reflects the well-established clinical perspective that polysubstance use among these cohorts is the norm rather than the exception (nine). This has significance from a neuropsychological perspective as the extent of polysubstance use should not be underestimated, particularly when interpreting cognitive test performances. For example, as would be expected, individuals in the alcohol group consumed a significantly higher amount of alcohol per week during their self-reported lifetime heaviest catamenia of use. Even so, the mean weekly units of alcohol consumed by individuals in the MA-polydrug grouping during their heaviest period of use was still well in excess of recommended guidelines (49), with over half reporting a history of daily drinking. Furthermore, the mean weekly consumption was equivalent to 12 standard drinks a day and sustained utilise at this level over many years may result in declines in cognitive operation and could partially account for some of the difficulties experienced by individuals in this group (21). Thus, these findings highlight the importance of considering the wide history of AOD use rather than simply focusing on the most recent, current, or principal drug of concern when considering the possible etiologies of cognitive difficulty.
In improver, those in the MA-polydrug group presented with significantly greater substance-related harms relative to the alcohol simply group. As would be expected from a polydrug group, a younger average age of onset of use, increased run a risk of overdose, utilize of intravenous methods, and blood borne virus infection were nowadays. The MA-polydrug group also presented with significantly higher rates of offending histories with a high proportion having a history of violent offending (42.v%) which is consistent with prior studies (50, 51). Interestingly, while no differences were observed in diagnoses of moderate or astringent ABI, a high proportion of individuals in the MA-polydrug grouping (42.5%) reported having sustained concussive or balmy traumatic brain injuries. This may be reflective of the higher rates of offending behavior and/or potential tearing interactions experienced by individuals over the years associated with a substance using lifestyle (50). The differences in overall offending and legal interest besides suggests that individuals in the MA-polydrug group may exist more likely to come up to the attending of authorities, potentially through their involvement in illicit as opposed to licit substance utilise (i.e., alcohol). Past research has demonstrated the increased risk of legal involvement, incarceration, and adverse psychosocial experiences of individuals with MA use disorder relative to other substance using groups (8, ix). This may besides be one reason why individuals in the MA-polydrug group were significantly younger than those in the alcohol group; with involvement in the legal system they, and their feel of cerebral difficulty, may come to the attention of clinical services and be referred earlier than other groups. Similarly, the use of illicit substances by this group may result in increased formal and informal societal pressure for individuals to seek treatment earlier than those using a licit and socially sanctioned substance such as alcohol (viii).
The high prevalence of mental health comorbidity, trauma experiences, suicidal ideation, and active symptoms of low, anxiety, and stress in both groups highlights the mutual experience of emotional distress in these substance using cohorts. While these findings are consequent with prior research in substance using cohorts (8, ix), with some associations between emotional distress and intellectual operation existence demonstrated (52), the pregnant bear upon of emotional distress upon cognitive functioning is often not appropriately considered. Such symptoms are disquisitional to consider equally the presence of mental health and psychiatric comorbidities represent potentially modifiable risk factors for cognitive impairment (xv–17, xix, 53). For example, in a recent report of the biopsychosocial predictors of neuropsychological operation in substance users attention for neuropsychological assessment, emotional distress was consistently shown to have an independent contribution to test performances on several cerebral domains including information processing speed, working memory and divided attention (nineteen).
Similarly, premorbid characteristics such equally pre-existing neurodevelopmental disabilities were besides common and could account for some aspects of cognitive difficulty in these cohorts (13, 19, 54). It was notable that 15% of the MA-polydrug cohort had diagnoses of ADHD, which is higher than rates in the adult population more broadly and in keeping with previous literature that has suggested rates of ADHD are between ii and six times higher in MA users (55, 56). These neurodevelopmental and substance-related factors may well have an interconnected bidirectional relationship, whereby pre-existing cognitive difficulties (i.eastward., ADHD) may increase likelihood of hazard-taking behavior at a young age, including MA utilize and associated harms, merely MA use may also be an indirect manner that this group "cocky-medicates" for ADHD symptomatology (55). From a clinical perspective, these finding highlight the demand to consider neurodevelopmental disorders (particularly ADHD) and mental health diagnoses and implement appropriate intervention every bit function of the treatment process for this group.
Overall, the implications of these findings are that a broad diversity of take chances factors and clinical variables need to exist considered when evaluating the presence of cerebral impairment in people who use substances including medical and psychiatric health, active and past substance utilise, emotional distress, and psychosocial background including adverse babyhood events and educational opportunities. Literature that makes strong statements about the presence of cognitive impairments being solely attributable to MA use, without considering the implications of these broader factors should be interpreted with caution. The contribution of biopsychosocial factors to cognitive functioning has been well established (xv–17, xix, 53, 57–63) and should not be underestimated in individuals using MA or other substances who present with cognitive difficulty. It is besides clear that individuals with MA-polydrug use histories and cerebral difficulty present with some unique aspects to their biopsychosocial profiles including exposure to a college gamble of overall harm from substance utilize at a significantly younger age.
From a clinical perspective, these findings reiterate the need for adopting a biopsychosocial approach to formulation and ensuring that all needs are identified and addressed in order to maximize overall outcomes for MA-polydrug users. Those querying MA or substance-related cerebral impairment should consider the impact of these other, potentially modifiable factors that are known to impact noesis, prior to referral to neuropsychology or conveying a diagnosis of ABI. For example, in collaboration with the individuals' goals this many include referrals to review any medical or psychiatric concerns, trialing participation in drug and booze rehabilitation or addressing unmet psychosocial needs (e.g., housing or legal bug). Addressing these may allow for other interventions or treatments to be more effective (e.g., neuropsychological cess, psychological therapy or counseling). Should an individual then experience persistent cognitive difficulty or a failure to recover adequately this would be a particularly clear indication for the demand for further neuropsychological input or investigation. Recognizing that achieving the above is often out of reach when seeing individuals with complex and ongoing apply, in these circumstances, neuropsychologists should also be cautious when attributing cognitive impairments solely to MA utilise. Rather, clinicians demand to consider broader substance employ histories, the indirect touch on of associated substance-related harms, and the potential for co-morbid neurodevelopmental disorders, mental wellness and other psychosocial/legal stressors. Neuropsychological interventions should also be holistic in their approach, addressing cognitive, psychological, emotional, behavioral, and lifestyle factors. From a enquiry perspective, the electric current findings also highlight the limitations of grouping individuals according to their substance use equally this is fraught with problems and potential confounding variables for all but the most rigorous experimental designs. An alternative approach may be to adopt more than transdiagnostic methods to clinical classification given the breadth of common comorbidities and symptomatology across substance using cohorts. A particular avenue for future research would exist to evaluate the independent contributions of these demographics, clinical and substance use variables on cerebral functioning in particular groups such equally individuals who employ MA heavily which would help inform clinical formulations and treatment recommendations. Longitudinal follow up of a cohort such every bit this would exist particularly informative.
Limitations
The findings of the current report must be interpreted in the context of a number of limitations. Firstly, the sample was drawn from existing data of clients seen for a neuropsychological cess, which limited what variables could be extracted and utilized in the analyses. Furthermore, every bit assessments were conducted for clinical, rather than research purposes, not all clients completed the aforementioned measures leading to some missing information throughout several variables. In order to accost this limitation, the most consistently administered measures were selected for the study to maximize the information bachelor. Another limitation was the smaller sample size of the alcohol grouping which likely express our ability to observe differences with small effect sizes and conduct more advanced statistical procedures such every bit multiple regression to evaluate the predictive utility of central variables. As well as noted, the MA-polydrug group consisted of individuals who also used a broad variety of other substances, including alcohol, which may take impacted our power to discover differences between the 2 groups. Consideration of methods to control for these effects at a statistical level was given, however, due to the concerns regarding the appropriateness of these methods with the current sample, power and available variables nosotros elected not to pursue these approaches. Similarly, consideration was given to adjusting for multiple comparisons, such as using Bonferroni corrections, nonetheless this would accept resulted in an overly strict alpha level (64). Finally, these findings must be interpreted within the context of the clinical setting that the participating individuals were referred to which is a tertiary specialist clinical neuropsychology service. As part of this service individuals are triaged according to clinical complexity and demand, with those experiencing more than persistent or significant cerebral difficulties more than likely to be recommended to undergo a formal assessment. Individuals presenting with less significant concerns in combination with unmanaged treatment needs are oftentimes recommended to pursue these treatment avenues in the beginning case prior to formal assessment. This clinical triage process therefore probable introduces a degree of selection bias for the sample obtained and may non exist representative of wider clinical populations.
Conclusions
The findings of the current report highlight the clinical comorbidities and biopsychosocial contexts of individuals with histories of heavy MA apply who are experiencing cerebral difficulty. In these contexts, it is often non possible to aspect causality or identify MA apply as a specific etiology, as many of these other demographic, neurodevelopmental, medical, psychiatric or polysubstance use factors are well known to significantly influence cognitive functioning. Importantly, these experiences of cognitive difficulty were sufficient to warrant formal neuropsychological investigation and consistent with prior work, a range of modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors for cognitive turn down were present, such as heightened emotional distress, that may account for these difficulties (nineteen). These factors have important implications for the estimation of past and time to come research piece of work and also for clinicians working with these cohorts as they must be well attuned to the presence of these factors and able to ensure they are well managed through appropriate referral and handling.
Data Availability Statement
The data analyzed in this study is bailiwick to the following licenses/restrictions: the dataset analyzed is not publicly available in order to maintain confidentiality of individual client data only may exist available from the respective author on reasonable request with appropriate organizational and ethical approval. Requests to access these datasets should be directed to jamesg@turningpoint.org.au.
Ideals Statement
The studies involving human participants were reviewed and canonical by Eastern Health Man Research Ethics Commission, Eastern Wellness, Box Hill, Australia. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.
Author Contributions
JG, CC, VP, SA, and VM: pattern and carry of the written report. JG, CC, VP, and Ac: data collection and extraction. JG, VP, and SA: information analysis. JG, VP, CC, SA, GB, AC, VM, and DL: manuscript drafting, editing and review. All authors have read and approved of the final manuscript.
Funding
JG is supported by a scholarship from the National Heart for Clinical Enquiry in Emerging Drugs (NCCRED), funded by the Republic Department of Health (Commonwealth of australia). NCCRED had no role in the review, design, assay, interpretation or preparation of this work.
Conflict of Interest
DL has received travel back up and speaker honoraria from Astra Zeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Camurus, Indivior, Janssen, Lundbeck, Servier, and Shire.
The remaining authors declare that the enquiry was conducted in the absence of whatever commercial or financial relationships that could be construed every bit a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher's Annotation
All claims expressed in this commodity are solely those of the authors and exercise not necessarily correspond those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any production that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be fabricated past its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed past the publisher.
Acknowledgments
JG would similar to admit the support of NCCRED through their scholarship program and the mentorship of A/Prof Raimundo Bruno during this program. The authors would also like to acknowledge Associate Professor Suzanne Neilson and Dr. Bianca Hoban for their assistance in calculating sedative load indices.
References
1. ACIC. Illict Drug Information Report 2018–2019. Canberra: ACIC (2020).
Google Scholar
2. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Alcohol and other drug apply in regional and remote Australia: consumption, harms and admission to handling, 2016-17 Cat. no. HSE 212. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2019).
Google Scholar
3. Whetton S, Shanahan G, Cartwright G, Duraisingam V, Ferrante A, Greyness D, et al. The Social Costs of Methamphetamine in Australia 2013/14. In: Tait RJ, Allsop S, editors. Perth, Western Australia: National Drug Research Establish, Curtin University (2016).
PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar
5. Panenka WJ, Procyshyn RM, Lecomte T, MacEwan GW, Flynn SW, Honer WG, et al. Methamphetamine use: a comprehensive review of molecular, preclinical and clinical findings. Drug Alcohol Depend. (2013) 129:167–79. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2012.11.016
PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
half-dozen. Davidson C, Gow AJ, Lee Thursday, Ellinwood EH. Methamphetamine neurotoxicity: necrotic and apoptotic mechanisms and relevance to human being abuse and treatment. Encephalon Res Rev. (2001) 36:i–22. doi: 10.1016/S0165-0173(01)00054-6
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
8. Lubman DI, Garfield JBB, Manning V, Berends L, Best D, Mugavin JM, et al. Characteristics of individuals presenting to handling for primary alcohol issues versus other drug problems in the Australian patient pathways study. BMC Psychiatry. (2016) 16:250. doi: 10.1186/s12888-016-0956-nine
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
9. Quinn B, Stoové Chiliad, Papanastasiou C, Dietze P. Methamphetamine use in Melbourne, Australia: baseline characteristics of a prospective methamphetamine-using cohort and correlates of methamphetamine dependence. J Subst Use. (2013) 18:349–62. doi: 10.3109/14659891.2012.675400
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
ten. Basterfield C, Hester R, Bowden SC. A meta-assay of the relationship between abstinence and neuropsychological functioning in methamphetamine use disorder. Neuropsychology. (2019) 33:739–53. doi: 10.1037/neu0000552
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
xi. Scott JC, Forest SP, Matt GE, Meyer RA, Heaton RK, Atkinson JH, et al. Neurocognitive furnishings of methamphetamine: a critical review and meta-analysis. Neuropsychol Rev. (2007) 17:275–97. doi: x.1007/s11065-007-9031-0
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
12. Potvin South, Pelletier J, Grot South, Hébert C, Barr AM, Lecomte T. Cerebral deficits in individuals with methamphetamine use disorder: a meta-analysis. Aficionado Behav. (2018) lxxx:154–60. doi: ten.1016/j.addbeh.2018.01.021
PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
13. Braatveit KJ, Torsheim T, Hove O. Intellectual performance in in-patients with substance apply disorders: preliminary results from a clinical mediation report of factors contributing to IQ variance. Eur Addict Res. (2018) 24:nineteen–27. doi: ten.1159/000486620
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
14. Gooden JR, Cox CA, Petersen Five, Curtis A, Manning V, Lubman DI. Characterisation of presentations to a customs-based specialist addiction neuropsychology service: Cognitive profiles, diagnoses and comorbidities. Drug Alcohol Rev. (2021) xl:83–92.
PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar
xv. Goodall J, Fisher C, Hetrick S, Phillips L, Parrish EM, Allott K. Neurocognitive functioning in depressed young people: a systematic review and meta-assay. Neuropsychol Rev. (2018) 28:216–31. doi: ten.1007/s11065-018-9373-ix
PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
16. Cohen BE, Neylan TC, Yaffe G, Samuelson KW Li Y, Barnes DE. Posttraumatic stress disorder and cognitive part: findings from the listen your heart written report. J Clin Psychiatry. (2013) 74:1063–70. doi: 10.4088/JCP.12m08291
PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
17. Rock PL, Roiser JP, Riedel WJ, Blackwell Ad. Cerebral impairment in low: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychol Med. (2014) 44:2029–40. doi: ten.1017/S0033291713002535
PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
18. Kingston REF, Marel C, Mills KL. A systematic review of the prevalence of comorbid mental health disorders in people presenting for substance utilize treatment in Australia. Drug Booze Rev. (2017) 36:527–39. doi: ten.1111/dar.12448
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
19. Gooden JR, Cox CA, Petersen Five, Curtis A, Sanfilippo PG, Manning V, et al. Predictors of cognitive operation in presentations to a community-based specialist addiction neuropsychology service. Brain Impair. (2021). doi: ten.1017/BrImp.2021.38
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
21. Crowe SF, Cammisuli DM, Stranks EK. Widespread cognitive deficits in alcoholism persistent following prolonged abstinence: an updated meta-assay of studies that used standardised neuropsychological assessment tools. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. (2019) 35:31–45. doi: x.1093/arclin/acy106
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
24. Loeber S, Duka T, Welzel Márquez H, Nakovics H, Heinz A, Isle of man K, et al. Furnishings of repeated withdrawal from alcohol on recovery of cognitive impairment under abstinence and rate of relapse. Booze Booze. (2010) 45:541–7. doi: 10.1093/alcalc/agq065
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
25. Woods AJ, Porges EC, Bryant VE, Seider T, Gongvatana A, Kahler CW, et al. Current heavy alcohol consumption is associated with greater cognitive harm in older adults. Alcohol: Clin Exp. (2016) forty:2435–44. doi: ten.1111/acer.13211
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
26. Linjakumpu TA, Hartikainen SA, Klaukka TJ, Koponen HJ, Hakko HH, Viilo KM, et al. Sedative drug employ in the home-dwelling elderly. Ann Pharmacother. (2004) 38:2017–22. doi: 10.1345/aph.1E067
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
27. Linjakumpu T, Hartikainen S, Klaukka T, Koponen H, Kivelä SL, Isoaho R, et al. A model to classify the allaying load of drugs. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. (2003) 18:542–four. doi: ten.1002/gps.846
PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
28. Hoban B, Gisev North, Nielsen S, Larance B, Bruno R, Degenhardt 50. Investigating correlates of sedative load among people with chronic non-cancer pain and the association with drowsiness and ambulance utilize. In: 2015 NDARC Almanac Inquiry Symposium. Sydney (2015).
Google Scholar
29. Saxton J, Munro CA, Butters MA, Schramke C, McNeil MA. Alcohol, dementia, and alzheimer'south disease: comparison of neuropsychological profiles. J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol. (2000) xiii:141–9. doi: 10.1177/089198870001300308
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
xxx. Pearson Assessment. Advanced clinical solutions for the WAIS-IV and WMS-Iv: Adminstration and Scoring Manual. San Antonio, TX: NCS Pearson (2009).
Google Scholar
32. Wechsler D. WMS-Iv Administration and Scoring Transmission. Sydney, NSW: Pearson (2008).
Google Scholar
33. Meyers JE, Meyers KR. The Meyers Scoring Organisation for the Rey Complex Figure and the Recognition Trial: Professional transmission. Odessa, Florida: Psychological Assessment Resources (1995).
Google Scholar
35. Tombaugh TN, Kozak J, Rees L. Normative data stratified by age and didactics for two measures of exact fluency: FAS and animal naming. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. (1999) xiv:167–77. doi: x.1093/arclin/14.2.167
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
36. Troyer AK, Leach L, Strauss E. Aging and response inhibition: normative data for the Victoria stroop exam. Neuropsychol Dev Cogn B Aging Neuropsychol Cogn. (2006) thirteen:20–35. doi: 10.1080/138255890968187
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
37. Lovibond SH, Lovibond PF. Transmission for the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales. second ed Sydney: Psychology Foundation (1995). doi: x.1037/t01004-000
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
38. Strauss E, Sherman EM, Spreen O. A Compendium of Neuropsychological Tests: Assistants, Norms, and Commentary. 3rd ed New York, New York: Oxford University Press (2006).
PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar
39. Reitan R, Wolfson D. The Halstead-Reitan Neuropsychological Test Battery. Tuscan, Arizona: Neuropsychology Press (1988).
Google Scholar
forty. Lesak MD, Howieson DB, Bigler ED, Tranel D. Neuropsychological Assessment. 5th ed New York, New York: Oxford University Press (2012).
Google Scholar
41. IBM Corp. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 28.0 Armonk. NY: IBM Corp (2021).
Google Scholar
42. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang A-G, Buchner A. Thou*Power 3: a flexible statistical power assay programme for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. (2007) nine:175–91. doi: 10.3758/BF03193146
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
43. Aharonovich E, Hasin DS, Brooks AC, Liu 10, Bisaga A, Nunes EV. Cognitive deficits predict low treatment retentiveness in cocaine dependent patients. Drug Alcohol Depend. (2006) 81:313–22. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2005.08.003
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
44. Bates ME, Bowden SC, Barry D. Neurocognitive impairment associated with booze utilise disorders: Implications for treatment. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. (2002) x:193–212. doi: x.1037/1064-1297.10.3.193
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
45. Bates ME, Pawlak AP, Tonigan JS, Buckman JF. Cerebral damage influences drinking effect by altering therapeutic mechanisms of modify. Psychol Addict Behav. (2006) 20:241–53. doi: x.1037/0893-164X.20.three.241
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
46. Houston RJ, Derrick JL, Leonard KE, Testa M, Quigley BM, Kubiak A. Furnishings of heavy drinking on executive cognitive functioning in a community sample. Addict Behav. (2014) 39:345–9. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2013.09.032
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
47. Crowe SF, Stranks EK. The residue medium and long-term cerebral effects of benzodiazepine employ: an updated meta-analysis. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. (2018) 33:901–11. doi: 10.1093/arclin/acx120
PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
48. Marshall BDL, Werb D. Wellness outcomes associated with methamphetamine employ among young people: a systematic review. Addiction. (2010) 105:991–1002. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2010.02932.10
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
49. National Wellness and Medical Enquiry Quango. Australian Guidelines to Reduce Health Risks from Drinking Alcohol. Canberra: Commonwealth of australia (2020).
Google Scholar
50. Darke S, Torok Yard, Kaye S, Ross J, McKetin R. Comparative rates of violent law-breaking among regular methamphetamine and opioid users: offending and victimization. Addiction. (2010) 105:916–9. doi: ten.1111/j.1360-0443.2009.02872.x
PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
51. McKetin R, Lubman DI, Najman JM, Dawe Due south, Butterworth P, Baker AL. Does methamphetamine employ increase violent behaviour? Evidence from a prospective longitudinal study. Habit. (2014) 109:798–806. doi: 10.1111/add together.12474
PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
52. Hetland J, Braatveit KJ, Hagen E, Lundervold AJ, Erga AH. Prevalence and characteristics of borderline intellectual functioning in a cohort of patients with polysubstance utilise disorder. Front Psychiatry. (2021) 12:651028. doi: ten.3389/fpsyt.2021.651028
PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
53. Robinson O, Vytal One thousand, Cornwell B, Grillon C. The impact of feet upon cognition: perspectives from man threat of shock studies. Front Hum Neurosci. (2013) 7:203. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00203
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
54. Severtson SG, Hedden SL, Martins SS, Latimer WW. Patterns of cognitive impairments among heroin and cocaine users: the clan with cocky-reported learning disabilities and infectious disease. J Learn Disabil. (2012) 45:139–50. doi: x.1177/0022219409355481
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
55. Bordoloi Thou, Chandrashekar M, Yarasi North. ADHD in adults and its relation with methamphetamine use: national information. Curr Dev Disord Rep. (2019) six:224–vii. doi: 10.1007/s40474-019-00174-westward
CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
56. Obermeit LC, Cattie JE, Bolden KA, Marquine MJ, Morgan EE, Franklin DR, et al. Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder amongst chronic methamphetamine users: Frequency, persistence, and agin effects on everyday performance. Addict Behav. (2013) 38:2874–8. doi: ten.1016/j.addbeh.2013.08.010
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
57. Barreira DP, Marinho RT, Bicho One thousand, Fialho R, Ouakinin SRS. Psychosocial and neurocognitive factors associated with hepatitis C–implications for futurity health and wellbeing. Front Psychol. (2019) ix:2666. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02666
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
59. Gould F, Clarke J, Heim C, Harvey PD, Majer M, Nemeroff CB. The furnishings of kid abuse and fail on cognitive functioning in adulthood. J Psychiatr Res. (2012) 46:500–6. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2012.01.005
PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
60. Wilens TE, Martelon M, Joshi G, Bateman C, Fried R, Little C, et al. Does ADHD predict substance-use disorders? a x-yr follow-up study of immature adults with ADHD. J Am Acad Kid Adolesc Psychiatry. (2011) 50:543–53. doi: ten.1016/j.jaac.2011.01.021
PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
61. Carroll A, Houghton Southward, Conservative A. Self-reported substance apply among high school students with and without learning difficulties. Aust J Acquire Disabil. (2014) 19:47–59. doi: x.1080/19404158.2014.909861
CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
62. Beitchman JH, Wilson B, Douglas L, Young A, Adlaf E. Substance employ disorders in young adults with and without LD: predictive and concurrent relationships. J Learn Disabil. (2001) 34:317–32. doi: x.1177/002221940103400407
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
63. Bruijnen CJWH, Dijkstra BAG, Walvoort SJW, Markus W, VanDerNagel JEL, Kessels RPC, et al. Prevalence of cerebral impairment in patients with substance utilize disorder. Drug Alcohol Rev. (2019) 38:435–42. doi: 10.1111/dar.12922
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
Source: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.795400/full
0 Response to "Responses to Is Cognitive Functioning Impaired in Methamphetamine Users? A Critical Review"
Post a Comment