Outcomes from a computer-assisted intervention simultaneously targeting cannabis and tobacco use. (1st October 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Lee, Dustin C.; Budney, Alan J.; Brunette, Mary F.; Hughes, John R.; Etter, Jean-Francois; Stanger, Catherine
• Is Part Of: Drug and alcohol dependence. Volume 155(2015)
• Page Start: 134
• Page End: 140
• Publication Date: 2015-10-01
• Subjects: Cannabis -- Tobacco -- Co-use -- Computer-assisted -- Treatment -- Incentives; Drug abuse -- Periodicals; Alcoholism -- Periodicals; 616.86
• DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2015.08.001
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0376-8716

Abstract

Highlights: An intervention simultaneously targeting tobacco and cannabis is feasible. Including an intervention for tobacco did not negatively impact cannabis abstinence. A majority of the sample participated in the tobacco intervention. Participants smoked fewer cigarettes at end of treatment compared to a historical control group. Abstract: Background: Cannabis users frequently report concurrent tobacco use, and tobacco use is associated with poorer outcomes during treatment for cannabis use disorders (CUD). Interventions that simultaneously target both tobacco and cannabis use disorders may enhance cessation outcomes for either or both substances. Methods: This study evaluated an intervention integrating highly effective treatments for cannabis and tobacco use disorders. Thirty-two participants meeting diagnostic criteria for CUD and reporting daily tobacco use were enrolled in a 12-week computer-assisted behavioral treatment for CUD. Participants were encouraged to participate in a tobacco intervention that included a computer-assisted behavioral treatment tailored for tobacco and cannabis co-users, and nicotine-replacement therapy (NRT). Cannabis and tobacco outcomes were evaluated using descriptive statistics and were compared to a historical control group that received treatment for CUD but not tobacco. Results: Participants achieved 3.6 ± 4.3 consecutive weeks of cannabis abstinence, which was comparable to the historical control group (3.1 ± 4.4). A majority of the sample (78%) completed at least one tobacco module and 44% initiated NRT. Over half (56%) initiated tobacco quit attempts, and 28% were tobacco abstinent for at least two consecutive weeks. Participants showed greater reduction in tobacco use (cigarettes per day) than the historical control group, but differences in tobacco abstinence rates during the final month of treatment were not statistically significant (12.5% vs. 4%). Conclusion: Findings suggest that providing a tobacco intervention during treatment for CUD is feasible and may positively impact tobacco use without negatively affecting cannabis use outcomes.