Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Background. Substance use may increase the risk of non-adherence to antipsychotics, resulting in negative outcomes in
patients with psychosis.
Method. We aimed to quantitatively summarize evidence regarding the effect of cannabis use, the most commonly
used illicit drug amongst those with psychosis, on adherence to antipsychotic medication. Studies were identied
through a systematic database search. Adopting random-effects models, pooled odds ratios (OR) for risk of non-
adherence to antipsychotic medications were calculated comparing: cannabis-users at baseline v. non-users at
baseline; non users v. continued cannabis users at follow-up; non-users v. former users at follow-up; former
users v. current users.
Results. Fifteen observational studies (n = 3678) were included. Increased risk of non-adherence was observed for
cannabis users compared to non-users (OR 2.46, n = 3055). At follow-up, increased risk of non-adherence was
observed for current users compared to non-users (OR 5.79, n = 175) and former users (OR 5.5, n = 192), while
there was no difference between former users and non-users (OR 1.12, n = 187).
Conclusions. Cannabis use increases the risk of non-adherence and quitting cannabis use may help adherence to
antipsychotics. Thus, cannabis use may represent a potential target for intervention to improve medication adher-
ence in those with psychosis.
Received 20 January 2016; Revised 2 January 2017; Accepted 4 January 2017; First published online 9 February 2017
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 190.236.207.170, on 11 Jul 2017 at 01:43:57, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291717000046
1692 E. Foglia et al.
2016a), suggesting the importance of this predictor of non- numbers and reasons for exclusion. Data extraction fol-
adherence in those with psychosis. lowed a systematic process consisting in compiling a
Despite the prevalence and impact of cannabis use, database (Supplementary Methods 1) with the vari-
to our knowledge no meta-analysis has as yet esti- ables of interest retrieved from the included studies.
mated the magnitude of its effect on medication non- Study selection and data extraction were performed
adherence. Only one systematic review (Zammit et al. by two authors (E.F. and E.K.) and disagreement was
2008) has been published on the topic, but it included resolved by consensus.
only three studies providing inconsistent evidence
(Zammit et al. 2008). Herein, we attempt to estimate Selection criteria and outcome measure
the magnitude of the association between cannabis
Only published peer-reviewed papers in English
use and medication non-adherence in those with
reporting original studies satisfying the following cri-
psychosis, and we assess the reporting strength of the
teria were considered: (1) studies had to investigate
available evidence on the topic. In line with previous
the relationship between cannabis use and medication
studies, we control for duration of follow-up (Cramer
adherence; (2) the majority of the sample had to be on
& Rosenheck, 1988; Lacro et al. 2002; Miller et al.
antipsychotic medication; (3) participants had to be
2009), age (Gonzalez-Pinto et al. 2006; Addington &
patients diagnosed with schizophrenia or any psych-
Addington, 2007; Castberg et al. 2009), gender
otic disorder using standardized criteria. If cannabis
(Castberg et al. 2009) and baseline illness severity
was not the only substance considered, studies were
(Zammit et al. 2008). We compare the differential
included only when they specied that cannabis was
effects of cannabis use on adherence between: (1) FEP
the most frequently used illicit substance, or when ana-
and non-FEP patients, that show higher rates of canna-
lysis was done for each substance separately, or when
bis use (Foti et al. 2010; Van Dijk et al. 2012) and non-
other substance use was controlled for. If the presence
adherence (Mojtabai et al. 2002; Mutsatsa et al. 2003);
of psychotic symptoms was unclear, papers were
and (2) affective and non-affective patients, in order
included only when the majority of the sample was
to obtain data relative to more homogeneous diagnos-
on antipsychotics. Similarly, if treatment was referred
tic groups.
to simply as drug treatment or medication, with
no specic reference to antipsychotic treatment, studies
were included only when the sample comprised
Method
patients with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, other
Literature search and selection procedures psychotic disorders or bipolar disorder with psychotic
symptoms, as such patients are most likely to be trea-
We applied the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies
ted with antipsychotics. Overlapping cohorts were
in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines for systematic
excluded.
reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies
The outcome of interest was non-adherence to anti-
(Stroup et al. 2000). The nal systematic search was
psychotics, with exclusion of studies that did not dis-
performed on 27 April 2015 through OVID in four data-
tinguish between adherence to pharmacological and
bases: EMBASE (19742015, week 17); Ovid MEDLINE
other forms of treatment.
In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations (1946 to
Present); Journals@Ovid; PsycINFO (1806February
Data analysis
2015). The search, limited to human studies, was run
through titles (ti) and abstracts (ab). Search terms were Studies that provided enough data to estimate odds
grouped in three categories: (1) DIAGNOSIS: psychosis; ratio (OR) for risk of non-adherence were pooled in a
psychot*; schizophren*; schizoaff*; (2) ILLICIT meta-analysis. For the rest, a narrative synthesis of
SUBSTANCES: cannabi*; drug-use; drug-abuse; drug- the ndings will be presented. Statistical analyses
misuse; substance-use; substance-abuse; substance- were conducted with Review Manager 5.3 (http://tech.
misuse; (3) ADHERENCE: adheren*; complian*. The cochrane.org/revman) and with R for meta-regression
Boolean Operator OR was adopted to separate within- and Eggers test. DerSimonian & Laird (1986)
category terms, while AND was used to combine the random-effects models (REM) were adopted, assuming
three categories. variations in true effect sizes across studies (Borenstein
To nd further relevant publications, reference lists et al. 2011). The outcome was dichotomized into two
were screened from included papers and other reviews categories: good v. poor/non-adherence. OR of non-
on drug use and adherence. Authors were contacted adherence and 95% condence intervals (CIs) were
for clarications and unpublished data. The PRISMA used as a measure of effect size due to the categorical
owchart presented in Fig. 1 shows the selection pro- nature of the outcome. Except where already reported
cedure followed to identify relevant studies, with (Coldham et al. 2002), ORs were calculated employing
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 190.236.207.170, on 11 Jul 2017 at 01:43:57, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291717000046
Cannabis use and adherence to antipsychotic medication 1693
Fig. 1. Literature search and selection of the studies, adapted from the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic
Reviews and Meta-Analyses) owchart (http://www.prisma-statement.org).
an online software (http://www.campbellcollaboration. users at follow-up (i.e. those who were smoking canna-
org/resources/effect_size_input.php) using frequency bis at baseline but quit at follow-up); and former users
distributions (Linszen et al. 1994; Martinez-Arevalo v. current users.
et al. 1994; Kovasznay et al. 1997; Rehman & Farooq, Further details about analysis are reported in
2007; Barbeito et al. 2013; Jnsdttir et al. 2013). Where Supplementary Methods 2.
frequencies were not available, 2 value (Pogge et al. Heterogeneity was estimated through the I2 statistic
2005) or mean difference and S.D. (Strakowski et al. (Higgins et al. 2003) and publication bias through fun-
2007; Schimmelmann et al. 2012) were used to calculate nel plots and the Eggers test (Egger et al. 1997).
Cohens d and its variance, from which ORs were esti- Possible confounding variables identied a priori
mated. We compared adherence outcomes between based on the rationale presented earlier were controlled
cannabis users and non-users groups. For studies that for through further statistical analysis. For continuous
reported data on course of cannabis use (Martinez- variables, the following confounders were entered in
Arevalo et al. 1994; Faridi et al. 2012; Schimmelmann meta-regression: (1) duration of follow-up; (2) mean
et al. 2012; Barbeito et al. 2013) adherence outcomes age; (3) gender distribution; (4) age difference between
were also compared between the following groups: cannabis users and non-users; (5) time difference
non-users (i.e. those who were not using cannabis between measurement of cannabis use and adherence.
both at baseline and at follow-up) v. continued cannabis For categorical variables, subgroup analyses were per-
users at follow-up (i.e. those who were smoking canna- formed for: (1) FEP only samples and Non-FEP/mixed
bis both at baseline and follow-up); non-users v. former samples; (2) Affective v. Non-affective psychosis
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 190.236.207.170, on 11 Jul 2017 at 01:43:57, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291717000046
1694 E. Foglia et al.
samples; (3) studies that controlled for baseline illness Strakowski et al. 2007; Miller et al. 2009;
severity v. those that did not. Due to the heterogeneity Gonzalez-Pinto et al. 2010; Faridi et al. 2012;
of diagnostic groups reported in different studies, those Schimmelmann et al. 2012; Barbeito et al. 2013;
that included at least 50% patients with affective psych- Jnsdttir et al. 2013) reporting on 3678 patients,
osis were included within the Affective group for the were considered for the systematic-review. Of these,
purpose of Affective v. Non-affective psychosis sub- those that provided sufcient data for effect-size esti-
group analysis and vice versa. mation were (Linszen et al. 1994; Martinez-Arevalo
Post-hoc sensitivity analysis was also performed et al. 1994; Kovasznay et al. 1997; Coldham et al. 2002;
excluding two studies (Linszen et al. 1994; Coldham Pogge et al. 2005; Rehman & Farooq, 2007;
et al. 2002) that, unlike the others, assessed both canna- Strakowski et al. 2007; Gonzalez-Pinto et al. 2010;
bis use and adherence at follow-up. Two prospective Schimmelmann et al. 2012; Barbeito et al. 2013;
studies (Martinez-Arevalo et al. 1994; Barbeito et al. Jnsdttir et al. 2013) for cannabis users v. non-users
2013) reported only data on course of cannabis use (i.e. (n = 3055 patients); three (Martinez-Arevalo et al.
how many participants at follow-up had never used can- 1994; Schimmelmann et al. 2012; Barbeito et al. 2013)
nabis, were currently using cannabis or had quit canna- each for non-users v. current users (n = 175) and
bis since baseline) but how many of these participants non-users v. former users (n = 187) and four
were using at baseline was not reported. For these stud- (Martinez-Arevalo et al. 1994; Faridi et al. 2012;
ies, we inferred that all those who were currently using Schimmelmann et al. 2012; Barbeito et al. 2013) for for-
cannabis at follow-up were also users at baseline, as mer users v. current users (n = 192). Further details are
research shows that rates of initiation of cannabis use presented in Supplementary Results 1.
after onset of psychosis are generally very low (Miller
et al. 2009). In order to rule out possible confounding Study characteristics
effects of such an approximation, we performed further
Table 1 shows the main characteristics of all of the 15
sensitivity analyses excluding these two studies.
studies identied through systematic search. The fol-
Additionally, we restricted the analysis to only samples
lowing section presents summary characteristics for
for which antipsychotics represented >50% of the total
the 11 studies included in the meta-analysis (cannabis
psychopharmacological treatment; the focus of the pre-
users v. non users), while data referring to the whole
sent review being on antipsychotic medication, this
sample of 15 studies is reported as part of
allowed to account for the fact that pharmacological
Supplementary Results 2. The included 11 studies
treatment was mixed in several studies. Finally, we per-
reported data from 11 different cohorts from across
formed sensitivity analysis on a restricted sample of
the world. Males represented 48.7% of the sample
studies rated at least 8 in reporting strength.
with a mean age of 36.8 years. This was signicantly
inuenced by data from a single study reporting on
Assessment of reporting strength the largest sample (Gonzalez-Pinto et al. 2010) (n =
In keeping with previous systematic reviews (McGrath 1831, mean age = 45 years), while the remaining studies
et al. 2004) and meta-analyses (Penttila et al. 2014) of psych- included patients with age ranging from 15 to 30 years.
osis epidemiology, we evaluated the reporting strength As for diagnoses, four studies included only schizophre-
and characteristics of the included studies with an assess- nia spectrum diagnoses, two only bipolar I diagnoses,
ment tool (Supplementary Methods 3) employed in a pre- while the others were mixed. The schizophrenia spec-
vious related review by Beards et al. (2013). We adapted trum disorder group included 25.7% of the pooled sam-
this tool to suit the specic focus of the present ple, while 2.1% fell into the Other psychosis group, and
meta-analysis in the absence of a standard tool that was 72.2% into the Bipolar and other affective disorders
t for purpose (see Supplementary Methods 3). Ratings group. Within the latter category, 48.5% had psychotic
were obtained by adding scores on a 3-point scale (02) symptoms, while for the rest, the presence of psychotic
on each item, and a nal score (04, poor; 59, moderate; symptoms was not specied. Five studies included only
1014, good) was assigned to each study. FEP patients early in the course of their illness, while
samples were mixed in the other studies. The majority
of the studies were observational (k = 11), longitudinal
Results
(k = 11) and prospective (k = 6), with follow-up periods
Results of search ranging from 6 months to 8 years (mean = 2.3 years).
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 190.236.207.170, on 11 Jul 2017 at 01:43:57, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291717000046
Cannabis use and adherence to antipsychotic medication 1695
Study
First author/year/location Sample Gender Treatment setting
(reference) sizea N (%) Mean age (S.D.) Diagnosesb Medication
(1) Coldham, 2002, Canadac 186 M: 126 (67.7) 23.6 (7.7) 1 Inpatients
F: 60 (32.3) Antipsychotics
(2) Gonzalez-Pinto, 2010, 10 1831 M: 788 (43) 44.8 (13.2) 2 (48.6%) Outpatients.
nationsc F:1043 (57) Antipsychotics, mood
stabilizers
(3) Miller, 2009, USA 105 M: 78 (74.3) 23.6 (N.A.) 1 Mixed.
F:34 (25.7)d Antipsychotics
(4) Pogge, 2005, USAc 86 M: 36 (41.9) 14.95 (1.34) 2 (N.A.) Outpatients.
F: 50 (58.1) 4 (N.A.) Antipsychotics
(5) de Haan, 2007, Netherlands 119 M: 96 (81) 20.9 (2.8) 1 Mixed.
F: 23 (19) Antipsychotics
(6) Martinez-Arevalo, 1994, 62 M: 40 (62) 23.6 (3.4) 1 Mixed.
Spainc F: 22 (35) Antipsychotics
(7) Schimmelmann, 2012, 99 M: 48 (48.5) 17.1 (1) 1, 2 (100%), 3 Inpatients.
Australiac F: 51 (51.5) Antipsychotics
(8) Barbeito, 2013, Spainc 98 M: 71 (72.4) 29.8 (10.7) 1, 2 (100%), 3 Mixed at FU
F: 27 (27.6) Antipsychotics
(9) Jnsdttir, 2013, Norwayc 154d M: 84 (54) 33.2 (9.3) 1 N.A.
F: 70 (46) Antipsychotic
(10) Faridi, 2012, Canada 145 M: 133 (69.3) 22.8 (3.9) 1, 2 (100%), 3 Inpatients.
F: 59 (30.7) Antipsychotics
(11) Kovasznay, 1997, UKc 202 104 (51.5) 27.75 (mean of 1, 2 (100%), 3 N.A.
98 (48.5) medians) N.A.
(12) Strakovski, 2007, USAc 144 M: 75 (52.1) 21.7 (7.8) 2 (at least N.A.
F: 69 (47.9) 73%) Antipsychotics, mood
stabilizers
(13) Perkins, 2006, USA 254 M: 208 (81.89) 23.85 (4.79) 1 Mixed.
F: 46 (18.11) Antipsychotics
(14) Linszen, 1994, 93 M: 67 (72) 20.6 (2.44) 1, 3 Outpatients.
Netherlandsc F: 26 (28) Antipsychotics
(15) Rehman & Farooq, 2007, 100 N.A. 28.2 (6.8) 1 N.A.
Pakistanc N.A.
a
Sample size for which analysis on the relationship between cannabis use and adherence was done.
b
1 = schizophrenia spectrum disorder (number specied when applicable); 2 = bipolar affective disorder (% with psychosis);
3 = other psychosis, including affective; 4 = other psychiatric diagnoses (% with psychosis).
c
Study included in the meta-analysis.
d
The study reported data for patients diagnosed with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder separately. Here only the
schizophrenia sample is considered, as presence of psychotic symptoms for the bipolar sample was not specied, and only
20% of the bipolar sample was on antipsychotics, thus not meeting the inclusion criteria.
was carried out for studies having a reporting in Supplementary Results 4. Five studies for canna-
strength rating of at least 8, as part of sensitivity bis and Five for adherence gathered data through
analyses. The following section reports data referred either only self-reports or only clinical ratings, and
to the 11 studies included in the quantitative ana- only one study for cannabis and none for adherence
lysis, while those for the whole sample of 15 studies used objective measures. Only two and three studies
are reported in online Supplementary Results adopted a combination of sources to assess cannabis
3. Reporting strength (Supplementary Results 3) use and adherence respectively. However, it is
was on average moderate (mean = 8) A summary important to note that most studies (six for adher-
description of the assessment methods used in the ence and six for cannabis) assessed variables at mul-
included study, with a strength score, is presented tiple time-points.
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 190.236.207.170, on 11 Jul 2017 at 01:43:57, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291717000046
1696 E. Foglia et al.
Effect of cannabis use on adherence to antipsychotics 34.3% for the FEP sample. Cannabis use and non-
adherence data for the larger sample of 15 studies
Summary results from each study are summarized in included in the systematic review are presented in
Table 2, together with the frequencies for cannabis Supplementary Results 2.
use and non-adherence data, where available. Results of the meta-analysis of 11 studies (Fig. 2)
Outcome measures varied according to the different suggest that cannabis use is associated with a nearly
denitions and cut-off points for non-adherence 150% increase in the risk of non-adherence: a highly
(Supplementary Results 4). Nine studies (Martinez- signicant increase in the risk of non-adherence was
Arevalo et al. 1994; Kovasznay et al. 1997; Pogge et al. observed at follow-up for cannabis users as compared
2005; Perkins et al. 2006; Miller et al. 2009; to non-users (OR 2.46, CI 1.973.07, p < 0.00001).There
Gonzalez-Pinto et al. 2010; Faridi et al. 2012; was no evidence of heterogeneity (I2 = 0%, p = 0.71)
Schimmelmann et al. 2012; Barbeito et al. 2013) dichot- and funnel plots and Eggers test (Fig. 3) showed no
omized the outcome into good v. poor/non-adherence. evidence of publication bias (p = 0.93).
Six studies (Linszen et al. 1994; Coldham et al. 2002; de Findings remained robust after controlling for con-
Haan et al. 2007; Rehman & Farooq, 2007; Strakowski founding through sub-group analyses (Supplementary
et al. 2007; Jnsdttir et al. 2013) included additional Results 5) and meta-regression (Supplementary Results
categories to reect intermediate levels of adherence, 6). No signicant subgroup differences were found
but three of them (Linszen et al. 1994; Coldham et al. (p > 0.05) and the effect-size estimate remained highly
2002; Strakowski et al. 2007) performed comparisons signicant (p < 0.00001) in each of the considered
only between the two extreme categories. Two studies sub-groups: (1) FEP (OR 2.22) v. non-FEP (OR 3.01); (2)
(Faridi et al. 2012; Barbeito et al. 2013) also assessed samples comprised of at least 50% patients with
course of adherence, and one study (Rehman & non-affective psychosis (OR 2.38) v. <50% (OR 2.51);
Farooq, 2007) assessed the number of relapses pre- (3) studies that controlled for baseline illness severity
ceded by poor adherence. In terms of denitions, (OR 2.97) v. those that did not (OR 2.16).
nine studies (Linszen et al. 1994; Martinez-Arevalo None of the following moderators entered in
et al. 1994; de Haan et al. 2007; Rehman & Farooq, meta-regression (Supplementary Results 6) had a sign-
2007; Strakowski et al. 2007; Miller et al. 2009; icant impact on the model (p > 0.05): (1) duration of
Gonzalez-Pinto et al. 2010; Faridi et al. 2012; follow-up; (2) mean age; (3) gender distribution; (4)
Jnsdttir et al. 2013) dened non-adherence as taking age difference between cannabis users and non-users;
medications as prescribed less than x% of the time (5) time difference between measurement of cannabis
(usually 7580%); three studies (Coldham et al. 2002; use and adherence.
Perkins et al. 2006; Schimmelmann et al. 2012) dened When sensitivity analysis was performed, consider-
non-adherence as failing to take medications for ing only studies that reported the effect of cannabis
longer than 1 week; two studies (Kovasznay et al. as measured before adherence (baseline or lifetime
1997; Pogge et al. 2005) adopted simple yes/no criteria cannabis) rather than at follow-up, the effect remained
(e.g. participant had/did not have adequate adherence robust (OR 2.49, CI 1.953.18, p < 0.00001, n = 9). No
during follow up) and one study (Schimmelmann et al. changes were detected also when considering only
2012) based its ratings on yes/no questions (e.g. Do studies rated at least 8 in reporting strength (OR
you sometimes forget to take your medicines?). 2.24, CI 1.702.97, p < 0.00001, n = 5) or only those in
With reference to the 11 studies included in the which antipsychotics represented at least 50% of
meta-analysis, prevalence of cannabis use was calcu- the pharmacological treatment (OR 2.55, CI 1.88
lated on the sample of studies that reported it. 3.47, p < 0.00001).
Prevalence of lifetime cannabis use was 18.9% as The 11 included studies also reported nine add-
reported by four studies; prevalence of baseline canna- itional outcomes that mostly corroborated those con-
bis use was 13.9% as reported by eight studies; and sidered for quantitative analysis: positive associations
prevalence of current or follow-up cannabis use was were reported between non-adherence and baseline
6.2% as reported by four studies. However, prevalence (Coldham et al. 2002; Gonzalez-Pinto et al. 2010;
was higher (54.3%, 39.1%, 25.1% for lifetime, baseline Barbeito et al. 2013), follow-up (Linszen et al. 1994;
and follow-up use, respectively) on excluding the Coldham et al. 2002; Gonzalez-Pinto et al. 2010;
study by Gonzalez-Pinto et al. (2010) which reported Barbeito et al. 2013) and lifetime (Kovasznay et al.
very low rates of co-morbid cannabis use, and also 1997; Gonzalez-Pinto et al. 2010) cannabis use, six of
when only FEP samples were considered (52.8%, which reached statistical signicance (p < 0.05).
44.9%, 25.8% for lifetime, baseline and follow-up use, As for the four studies that were excluded from the
respectively). Prevalence rates of non-adherence at quantitative analysis, one (de Haan et al. 2007) also
follow-up were 28.9% for the whole sample and reported a signicant positive association between
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 190.236.207.170, on 11 Jul 2017 at 01:43:57, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291717000046
https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291717000046
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 190.236.207.170, on 11 Jul 2017 at 01:43:57, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
Study
First author/year Cannabis frequencies Adherence frequencies
(reference) N (%) N (%) Main ndingsa
(1) Coldham, 2002 N.A. Non-adherent: 73 (39.9). Inadequately One-way ANOVA: non-adherent patients at 1 year: Greater
adherent: 37 (19.9). Adherent: 76 (40.9) baseline (F180,2 = 3.17, p = 0.04) and 1 year (F134,2 = 3.17, p =
0.001) cannabis use. Logistic regressiona: Cannabis use at 1
year signicant predictor of non-adherence at 1 year (OR 0.46
(0.250.48), p = 0.012)
(2) Gonzalez-Pinto, Lifetime: 217 (11.9); abuse/dependence 3 months Non-adherent: 429 (23.4) Odd ratios (95% CI): non-adherent patients at 12 weeks: higher
2010 before baseline: 65 (3.6); abuse/dependence lifetime cannabis use [OR 2.19 (1.62, 2.96)]; abuse/dependence
between baseline and week 12: 64 (3.5) 3 months before baseline [OR 2.97 (1.775.00)] and between
baseline and week 12 [OR 7.26 (2.7419.22)]. Logistic
regressiona: lower likelihood to be adherent if abuse/
dependence between baseline and 12 weeks [OR 0.31 (0.18
0.54), p < 0.001]
(3) Miller, 2009 Use assessed each month for 1 year. Users Adherence assessed each month for 1 year. Cox proportional hazard: cannabis users had signicantly
increased from 6% at month 1 to 22% at month 12 Proportion adherent dropped from 95% at increased hazards of dropout [HR 6.4 (1.235.6), p < 0.05] and
1697
https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291717000046
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 190.236.207.170, on 11 Jul 2017 at 01:43:57, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
Table 2 (cont.)
(8) Barbeito, 2013 Use at baseline: 51 (52); use at 8-year FU: 27 (29.3) Bad adherence: 73 (74.5). Good adherence 2: No signicant association between baseline cannabis use
increased from 25 (25.5) at baseline to 47 and baseline non-adherence (p > 0.05). Signicant positive
(51.1) at 8-year FU. association between 8-year cannabis use and 8-year
non-adherence (2 = 12.74, p < 0.001). Course of use
signicantly associated with: (1) non-adherence (2 = 11.43, p =
0.003), (2) course of adherence (2 = 24.04, p = 0.001). Multiple
logistic regression: non-users and former users more likely to
have improved adherence (B = 2.17, OR 8.79, p = 0.011)
(9) Jnsdttir, 2013c Past 2 weeks: schizophrenia (S) 18.4 (12.1), bipolar Fully adherent: S 85 (55.2), B 59 (58.4). 2: fully adherent patients signicantly less likely to be cannabis
(B) 4.4 (4.4); past 6 months: S 53.4 (21.7), B 12.4 Partially adherent: S 52 (33.8), B 27 (26.7). users than partially adherent ones at 2 weeks (6% and 17%
(12.3); past 2 years: S 41.73 (27.1), B 26.4 (26.3) Non-adherent: S 17 (11), B 17 (14.9) users, respectively, p < 0.05) and at 6 months (11% and 40%
users respectively, p < 0.01), but non-signicant difference
between fully adherent and non-adherent patients
(10) Faridi, 2012 DSM-IV active baseline CUD: 62/186 (33.3). N.A. Two-way ANOVA: main effect of cannabis use on
DSM-IV active CUD at FU: 28/48 (58.3) non-adherence (p = 0.578) but interaction between cannabis
use and time (p = 0.9) not signicant. Fishers exact test
(post-hoc analyses): among those who continued smoking,
signicantly more had improved adherence at 12-month (92%)
compared to those who stopped (40%) (p = 0.014)
(11) Kovasznay, DSM-III Lifetime SUD: 94 (46.5) (cannabis the Participants who were taking medications at Maximum likelihood estimates: Non-signicant association
1997d second most prevalent after alcohol) FU: 145 (71.8) between lifetime substance abuse disorder (SUD) and
medication non-adherence at 6-month FU
(12) Strakovski, 2007e No use: 75 (52.1). Cannabis before illness onset N.A. 2: Time (percentage of weeks over the follow-up period) with
(cannabis rst): 33 (22.9). Illness onset before full adherence with at least one type of medication was higher
cannabis (bipolar rst): 36 (25) for non-users (72%) than for cannabis users (48% for bipolar
rst, 56% for cannabis rst), but this difference was not
signicant after adjusting for potential mediators (p = 0.28)
(13) Perkins, 2006 Cannabis users: 81 (32) N.A. Cox proportional hazard: non-signicant association between
cannabis and non-adhernece (p = 0.30)
(14) Linszen, 1994 Cannabis abusers: 22 (24), 50% of which heavy Adherence: poor (124%): 3 (3); rather Cox regression hazard: a lower proportion of patients were in
users irregular (2549%): 2 (2); rather regular (50 the adherent group among cannabis users (67%) than
74%): 13 (14); regular (75100%): 75 (81) non-users (86%), but this difference was not signicant (p =
0.23)
Cannabis use and adherence to antipsychotic medication 1699
Non-adherent patients and partially-adherent patients were grouped into the poor/non-adherence group. The outcome for 6 months adherence was considered for OR calculation.
Bipolar-rst and cannabis-rst groups were grouped into the cannabis users group and compared with the non-users group. Mean % of weeks with adherence to medication was
cannabis use did not reach signicance as a predictor
Schizophrenia and affective psychosis samples were grouped into one and comparisons were made between lifetime SUD and no-SUD (schizophrenia + schizoaffective).
Cox Proportional Hazards considering cannabis as a
covariate varying over time, and found increased
hazards of non-adherence for cannabis users,
although this relationship was signicant in only
(Miller et al. 2009) of the two studies. Results for
the fourth study (Faridi et al. 2012) will be reported
in another section as it is pertinent to course of can-
(2 = 6.12, df = 3, p = 0.085)
nabis use.
Further outcomes of interest included positive asso-
ciation of cannabis use with service disengagement
(Miller et al. 2009), study-dropout (Pogge et al. 2005)
Outcomes included in the meta-analysis. Where no outcome is indicated by a, OR was calculated through frequency distributions.
antipsychotics
e
c
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 190.236.207.170, on 11 Jul 2017 at 01:43:57, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291717000046
1700 E. Foglia et al.
Fig. 2. Forest plot of studies comparing non users v. cannabis users (REM 1).
Fig. 3. Regression test for funnel plot asymmetry and Eggers test model: weighted regression with multiplicative dispersion
predictor: standard error test for funnel plot asymmetry: t = 0.0862, df = 9, p = 0.9332.
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 190.236.207.170, on 11 Jul 2017 at 01:43:57, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291717000046
Cannabis use and adherence to antipsychotic medication 1701
Fig. 4. Forest plots of studies comparing non-users (NU) v. current cannabis users (CCU), non-users v. former users (FU) and
former users v. current users at follow-up.
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 190.236.207.170, on 11 Jul 2017 at 01:43:57, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291717000046
1702 E. Foglia et al.
had never used cannabis to start using it (Miller et al. assessment methodologies. While this hinders coher-
2009). Another methodological issue was sample-size: ent interpretation of ndings, it also shows that similar
only three studies included a sample of at least 250 results were obtained through different methods,
participants, which has been estimated (Zammit et al. decreasing the likelihood of bias inherent to one par-
2008) to be desirable to obtain 80% power to detect ticular methodology. Similarly, the role of further fac-
an effect of cannabis use on psychotic outcome. tors associated with both cannabis use and
While methodological issues may also have led to non-adherence could not be assessed in the present
errors in the detection of non-adherence across the paper. For instance, personality traits as sensation
sample, this is most likely to have resulted in under- seeking, boredom-susceptibility, disinhibition (Liraud
rather than over-estimation. It is worth noting that, & Verdoux, 2001) and impulsivity (Swann et al. 2004)
although selection bias and attrition remain an inher- may be at the basis of both cannabis use and non-
ent problem with observational, longitudinal, pro- adherence. Baseline illness severity was accounted for
spective designs, as those who refuse to participate only by comparing studies that controlled for it with
or those who drop out are more likely to have been those that did not. Given the heterogeneity of scales
non-adherent (Pogge et al. 2005; de Haan et al. 2007; adopted to assess it, it was not possible to explore
Jnsdttir et al. 2013) studies included here had gener- whether illness severity as a continuum had an effect
ally low levels of refusal and attrition. The outcome on the model, or whether it differed signicantly
variable was generally dichotomized into adherence/ between cannabis users and non-users. A further limi-
non-adherence in a simplistic manner, less reective tation relates to the presence of a substantial propor-
of the complexity of the phenomenon in real-life tion (31.73%) of patients for whom the presence or
(Julius et al. 2009), compared to when considered as a absence of psychotic symptoms was not specied.
continuum. Finally, although misrepresentations of However, such patients were distributed across studies
complex phenomena such as non-adherence are inevit- in a way that never represented a signicant majority,
able as no assessment methodology is free from limita- except for one study (Gonzalez-Pinto et al. 2010).
tions only three (Martinez-Arevalo et al. 1994; Miller Our focus on adherence to antipsychotic treatment
et al. 2009; Jnsdttir et al. 2013) studies gathered did not allow us to investigate other aspects of
data on adherence from at least two sources of a differ- pharmacological treatment other than adherence (e.g.
ent nature, as recommended in a recent review medication resistance, responsiveness and side-effects)
(Velligan et al. 2006). Similarly, only two (Miller et al. and different aspects of adherence (e.g. service-
2009; Barbeito et al. 2013) studies did so when assessing disengagement and drop-out) that may also be affected
cannabis use. Overall, rates and patterns of cannabis by cannabis use. Future research should explore the
use and non-adherence, including their greater preva- interaction between cannabis use, service disengage-
lence in FEP samples, were consistent with previous ment and medication adherence in determining illness
reports (Lacro et al. 2002; Koskinen et al. 2010), suggest- outcome, which may be complex and multidirectional.
ing that cannabis use and non-adherence were none- Finally, since cannabis use was always dichotomized
theless fairly-well represented. into use v. non-use, investigating the existence of a
dose-response effect on adherence was not possible
with the present data.
Limitations
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 190.236.207.170, on 11 Jul 2017 at 01:43:57, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291717000046
Cannabis use and adherence to antipsychotic medication 1703
that minimize bias and attrition and assessments at patients with psychosis and co-morbid cannabis use
multiple time-points to better pin-point changes in can- (Wilson & Bhattacharyya, 2016).
nabis use and adherence. Furthermore, as mentioned Non-adherence is not only difcult to solve (Sendt
before, further research is needed to directly investi- et al. 2014) but also to detect in clinical practice. It is
gate the effect of course of cannabis use on adherence. generally identied only after multiple relapses, or
Finally, studies should investigate how cannabis use misinterpreted for lack of medication-efcacy, result-
and non-adherence interact in inuencing psychosis out- ing in continuous and ineffective changes in prescrip-
come. In fact, although previous research has suggested tions (Cramer & Rosenheck, 1998). Results presented
that cannabis use has a negative effect on psychosis here suggest that co-morbid cannabis use may act as
outcome (Zammit et al. 2008; Schoeler et al. 2016a, b), an early warning sign of future non-adherence and
it is not clear to what extent this effect may be perhaps indicate to clinicians the need to intervene
mediated by non-adherence. This could not be system- before relapse occurs. This may involve appropriate
atically assessed in the present meta-analysis as most strategies, including for instance an early switch to
studies adopted non-adherence as the only outcome depot medication to prevent the emergence of non-
measure. Only two studies among those included adherence in those at risk (Keith & Kane, 2003) as a
(Faridi et al. 2012; Schimmelmann et al. 2012) directly result of co-morbid cannabis use.
assessed the interaction between non-adherence and
cannabis use on clinical outcomes, with opposite
ndings. Faridi et al. (2012) found that, while follow-up Supplementary material
symptom severity was not affected by cannabis use,
The supplementary material for this article can be
continued cannabis users had increased level of symp-
found at https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291717000046.
toms after controlling for medication adherence. On
the contrary, Schimmelmann et al. (2012), reported
that medication non-adherence did not explain the Acknowledgements
relationship between continued cannabis use and
worse clinical outcome. Four other studies (Linszen This work was funded by a Clinician Scientist Award
et al. 1994; Martinez-Arevalo et al. 1994; Kovasznay (NIHR-CS-11-001) from the National Institute for
et al. 1997; Rehman & Farooq, 2007) adopted non- Health Research, UK to Dr Bhattacharyya. The funder
adherence and cannabis use as predictors of clinical had no role in the design and conduct of the study;
outcomes, and found that both variables were asso- collection, management, analysis, and interpretation
ciated with each other and independently associated of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the
with worse outcome. For instance, Rehman & Farooq manuscript; and the decision to submit the manuscript
(2007) reported that cannabis users had increased num- for publication. The views expressed here are those of
ber of relapses and that these were more often pre- the authors and not necessarily those of the National
ceded by poor drug compliance, suggesting that Health Service, National Institute for Health Research,
non-adherence may play a role in precipitating relapse or UK Department of Health. We thank all the authors
in cannabis users. However, such correlational ndings of the included studies, as well as Dr John Hodsoll (Kings
do not allow us to reach conclusion on whether non- College London, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology &
adherence is the main reason for the observed differ- Neuroscience), who provided statistical advice for the
ences in outcome according to cannabis use. Perhaps meta-analysis.
the relationship between cannabis use, non-adherence
and outcome of psychotic illness may be multi-
directional, with symptoms, cannabis use and non- Declaration of Interest
adherence being part of a self-reinforcing cycle of recip- None.
rocal exacerbation (Miller et al. 2009). Nevertheless, this
is an area that needs systematic investigation in future
studies. References
Our ndings have important clinical implications.
Addington J, Addington D (2007). Patterns, predictors and
The magnitude of the pooled effect suggests that dis-
impact of substance use in early psychosis: a longitudinal
couraging cannabis use in those with psychosis may
study. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavia 115, 304309.
result in fairly large improvement in adherence and Barbeito S, Vega P, Ruiz de Azua S, Saenz M,
thus better prognosis. This is particularly because Martinez-Cengotitabengoa M, Gonzalez-Ortega I,
available evidence suggests that antipsychotic medica- Bermudez C, Hernanz M, Corres BF, Gonzalez-Pinto A
tions have limited efcacy at best on psychosis para- (2013). Cannabis use and involuntary admission may
meters as well as cannabis use parameters in those mediate long-term adherence in rst-episode psychosis
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 190.236.207.170, on 11 Jul 2017 at 01:43:57, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291717000046
1704 E. Foglia et al.
patients: a prospective longitudinal study. BMC Psychiatry of patients with bipolar disorder. Pharmacopsychiatry 43,
13, 326. 263270.
Beards S, Gayer-Anderson C, Borges S, Dewey ME, Fisher Grech A, Van Os J, Jones PB, Lewis SW, Murray RM (2005).
HL, Morgan C (2013). Life events and psychosis: a review Cannabis use and outcome of recent onset psychosis.
and meta-analysis. Schizophrenia Bulletin 39, 740747. European Psychiatry 20, 349353.
Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JP, Rothstein HR (2011). Green AI (2006). Pharmacotherapy for schizophrenia and co-
Introduction to Meta-analysis. Wiley. occurring substance use disorders. Neurotoxicity Research 11,
Buckley PF (2007). Prevalence and consequences of the dual 3339.
diagnosis of substance abuse and severe mental illness. Green B, Young R, Kavanagh D (2005). Cannabis use and
Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 67, 59. misuse prevalence among people with psychosis. British
Buckley PF, Wirshing DA, Bhushan P, Pierre JM, Resnick Journal of Psychiatry 187, 306313.
SA, Wirshing WC (2007). Lack of insight in schizophrenia: Higashi K, Medic G, Littlewood KJ, Diez T, Granstrm O,
impact on treatment adherence. CNS Drugs 21, 129141. De Hert M (2013). Medication Adherence in schizophrenia:
Castberg I, Andreas AW, Olav S (2009). Does level of care, factors inuencing adherence and consequences of
sex, age, or choice of drug inuence adherence to treatment nonadherence, a systematic literature review. Therapeutic
with antipsychotics? Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology Advances in Psychopharmacology 3, 200218.
29, 415420. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG (2003).
Coldham E, Addington J, Addington D (2002). Medication Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. British Medical
adherence of individuals with a rst episode of psychosis. Journal (Clinical Research Edition) 327, 557560.
Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 106, 286290. Jnsdttir H, Opjordsmoen S, Birkenaes A, Simonsen C,
Colom F, Vieta E, Tacchi MJ, Sanchez-Moreno J, Scott J Engh J, Ringen P, Vaskinn A, Friis S, Sundet K,
(2005). Identifying and improving non-adherence in bipolar Andreassen O (2013). Predictors of medication adherence
disorders. Bipolar Disorders 7, 2431. in patients with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Acta
Conrod P, Castellanos-Ryan N, Strang J (2010). Brief Psychiatrica Scandinavica 127, 2333.
personality-targeted coping skills interventions and Julius RJ, Novitsky Jr. MA, Dubin WR (2009). Medication
survival as a non-drug user over a 2-year period. Archive adherence: a review of the literature and implications for
General Psychiatry 67, 8593. clinical practice. Journal of Psychiatric Practice 15, 3444.
Cramer JA, Rosenheck R (1998). Compliance with medication Kampman O, Lehtinen K (1999). Compliance in psychoses.
regimen for mental and physical disorders. Psychiatric Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavia 100, 167175.
Services 49, 196201. Keith SJ, Kane JM (2003). Partial compliance and patient
de Haan L, van Amelsvoort T, Dingemans P, Linszen P consequences in schizophrenia: our patients can do better.
(2007). Risk factors for medication non-adherence in Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 64, 13081315.
patients with rst episode schizophrenia and related Koskinen J, Lohonen J, Koponen H, Isohanni M, Miettunen
disorders; a prospective ve year follow-up. J (2010). Rate of cannabis use disorders in clinical samples
Pharmacopsychiatry 40, 264268. of patients with schizophrenia: a meta-analysis.
DerSimonian R, Laird N (1986). Meta-analysis in clinical Schizophrenia Bulletin 36, 11151130.
trials. Controlled Clinical Trials 7, 177188. Kovasznay B, Fleischer J, Tanenberg-Karant M, Jandorf L,
Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C (1997). Miller AD, Bromet E (1997). Substance use disorder and
Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. the early course of illness in schizophrenia and affective
British Medical Journal (Clinical Research Edition) 315, 629634. psychosis. Schizophrenia Bulletin 23, 195201.
Faridi K, Joober R, Malla A (2012). Medication adherence Lacro JP, Dunn LB, Dolder CR, Leckband SG, Jeste DV
mediates the impact of sustained cannabis use on symptom (2002). Prevalence of and risk factors for medication
levels in rst-episode psychosis. Schizophrenia Research 141, nonadherence in patients with schizophrenia: a
7882. comprehensive review of recent literature. Journal of Clinical
Fenton WS, Blyler CR, Heinsse RK (1997). Determinants of Psychiatry 63, 892909.
medication compliance in schizophrenia: empirical and Large M, Sharma S, Compton MT, Slade T, Nielssen O
clinical ndings. Schizophrenia Bulletin 23, 637651. (2011). Cannabis use and risk of psychotic or affective
Foti DJ, Kotov R, Guey LT, Bromet EJ (2010). Cannabis use mental health outcomes: a systematic review. Archive
and the course of schizophrenia: 10-year follow-up after rst General Psychiatry 68, 555561.
hospitalization. American Journal of Psychiatry 167, 987993. Linszen DH, Dingemans PM, Lenior ME (1994). Cannabis
Global Drug Survey (2014). (http://www.globaldrugsurvey. abuse and the course of recent-onset schizophrenic
com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/GDS2014_GLOBAL- disorders. Archives of General Psychiatry 51, 273279.
COMPARISONS_EVER-BOUGHT-DRUGS-ONLINE.pdf). Liraud F, Verdoux H (2001). Association between
Gonzalez-Pinto A, Mosquera F, Alonso M, Lpez P, temperamental characteristics and medication adherence in
Ramrez F, Vieta E, Baldessarini RJ (2006). Suicidal risk in subjects presenting with psychotic or mood disorders.
bipolar I disorder patients and adherence to long-term Psychiatry Research 102, 9195.
lithium treatment. Bipolar Disorders 8, 618624. Martinez-Arevalo MJ, Calcedo-Ordonez A, Varo-Prieto JR
Gonzalez-Pinto A, Reed C, Novick D, Bertsch J, Haro JM (1994). Cannabis consumption as a prognostic factor in
(2010). Assessment of medication adherence in a cohort schizophrenia. British Journal of Psychiatry 164, 679681.
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 190.236.207.170, on 11 Jul 2017 at 01:43:57, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291717000046
Cannabis use and adherence to antipsychotic medication 1705
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 190.236.207.170, on 11 Jul 2017 at 01:43:57, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291717000046