Links for Keyword: Drug Abuse

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter, or subscribe to our mailing list, to receive news updates. Learn more.


Links 21 - 40 of 1321

Leana Wen Every doctor and nurse in our hospital's emergency room knew Jerome. He was one of our regulars. In his 20s, he had back problems that led him to become addicted to prescription painkillers. That habit proved too expensive, and he switched to heroin. Jerome used to come to the ER nearly every week. Often, he just wanted a sandwich and someone to talk to. He had lost his job and his home. Several months ago, he decided he had to quit heroin. We helped him with health insurance so that he could find a primary care doctor. Our social worker connected him with addiction treatment, including medications and mental health counseling. He was also working on rekindling a relationship with his estranged family. One day, paramedics brought Jerome to the ER. They had found him in an abandoned building. He'd relapsed and was shooting heroin. A friend saw him unconscious and called for help. By the time paramedics arrived, he wasn't breathing and his heart had stopped beating. In the ER, we tried to resuscitate him for nearly an hour. We weren't successful. In Baltimore, where I serve as health commissioner, more people die from drug and alcohol overdoses than from homicide. In 2013, there were 246 deaths related to drugs and alcohol, compared with 235 homicides. © 2015 NPR

Related chapters from BP7e: Chapter 4: The Chemistry of Behavior: Neurotransmitters and Neuropharmacology
Related chapters from MM:Chapter 4: The Chemistry of Behavior: Neurotransmitters and Neuropharmacology
Link ID: 20783 - Posted: 04.11.2015

Cari Romm “As humans, we can identify galaxies light-years away. We can study particles smaller than an atom,” President Barack Obama said in April 2013, “But we still haven’t unlocked the mystery of the three pounds of matter that sits between our ears.” The observation was part of the president’s announcement of the Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative, an effort to fast-track the development of new technology that will help scientists understand the workings of the human brain and its diseases. With progress, though, comes a whole new set of ethical questions. Can drugs used to treat conditions like ADHD, for example, also be used to make healthy people into sharper, more focused versions of themselves—and should they? Can a person with Alzheimer’s truly consent to testing that may help scientists better understand their disease? Can brain scans submitted as courtroom evidence reveal anything about a defendant’s intent? Can a person with Alzheimer’s truly consent to testing that may help scientists better understand their disease? To address these questions, the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, an independent advisory group, recently released the second volume of a report examining the issues that may arise as neuroscience advances. The commission outlined three areas it deemed particularly fraught: cognitive enhancement, consent, and the use of neuroscience in the legal system. © 2015 by The Atlantic Monthly Group

Related chapters from BP7e: Chapter 17: Learning and Memory; Chapter 1: Biological Psychology: Scope and Outlook
Related chapters from MM:Chapter 13: Memory, Learning, and Development; Chapter 1: An Introduction to Brain and Behavior
Link ID: 20771 - Posted: 04.08.2015

Do Alcoholics Anonymous participants do better at abstinence than nonparticipants because they are more motivated? Or is it because of something inherent in the A.A. program? How researchers answered these questions in a recent study offers insight into challenges of evidence-based medicine and evidence-informed policy. The study, published in the journal Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, teased apart a treatment effect (improvement due to A.A. itself) and a selection effect (driven by the type of people who seek help). The investigators found that there is a genuine A.A. treatment effect. Going to an additional two A.A. meetings per week produced at least three more days of alcohol abstinence per month. Separating treatment from selection effects is a longstanding problem in social and medical science. Their entanglement is one of the fundamental ways in which evidence of correlation fails to be a sign of causation. For many years, researchers and clinicians have debated whether the association of A.A. with greater abstinence was caused by treatment or a correlation that arises from the type of people who seek it. Such confounding is often addressed with an experiment in which individuals are randomly assigned to either a treatment or a nontreatment (or control) group in order to remove the possibility of self-selection. The treatment effect is calculated by comparing outcomes obtained by participants in each group. Several studies of A.A. have applied this approach. For instance, Kimberly Walitzer, Kurt Dermen and Christopher Barrick randomized alcoholics to receive treatment that strongly encouraged and supported A.A. participation or a control group. The former exhibited a greater degree of abstinence. In an ideal randomized controlled trial (R.C.T.), everyone selected for treatment receives it and no one in the control group does. The difference in outcomes is the treatment effect, free of bias from selection. That’s the ideal. However, in practice, randomized controlled trials can still suffer selection problems. © 2015 The New York Times Company

Related chapters from BP7e: Chapter 4: The Chemistry of Behavior: Neurotransmitters and Neuropharmacology
Related chapters from MM:Chapter 4: The Chemistry of Behavior: Neurotransmitters and Neuropharmacology
Link ID: 20767 - Posted: 04.08.2015

by Bethany Brookshire A new round of dietary do’s and don’ts accompanied last month’s scientific report on the latest food research, summarizing everything from aspartame to saturated fats. The report puts eggs back on the menu. High dietary cholesterol is no longer linked to blood cholesterol in most healthy people. But what grabbed the headlines? Coffee, of course. Many of us are happy to raise a mug to our legal stimulant of choice, especially with the report’s suggestion that three to five cups of joe get a pass. But where do these numbers come from? What science do nutrition experts take into account to determine whether coffee is harmful or safe? And — perhaps the most important question — what does “three to five cups” really mean? The good news for coffee comes from the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, a group of experts in nutrition and health appointed by the Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to review the science behind what Americans should eat. The report, released February 19, is not the be-all-end-all of what should be on our plates and in our cups. Instead, it’s a scientific report intended to help the HHS and USDA make policy decisions for the next edition of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, due out later this year. This is the first time the U.S. Dietary Guidelines have addressed coffee at all. But now, there is enough science on coffee to make a closer look worthwhile, says Tom Brenna, a food scientist at Cornell University and a member of the Committee. “There was so much evidence out there,” he says. “Instead of just five or six papers on the subject, there’s a huge number.” © Society for Science & the Public 2000 - 2015

Related chapters from BP7e: Chapter 4: The Chemistry of Behavior: Neurotransmitters and Neuropharmacology
Related chapters from MM:Chapter 4: The Chemistry of Behavior: Neurotransmitters and Neuropharmacology
Link ID: 20758 - Posted: 04.06.2015

Founded by two men in Akron, Ohio, in 1935, Alcoholics Anonymous has since spread around the world as a leading community-based method of overcoming alcohol dependence and abuse. Many people swear by the 12-step method, which has become the basis of programs to treat the abuse of drugs, gambling, eating disorders and other compulsive behaviors. But not everyone's a fan. In a recent critique of AA, author Gabrielle Glaser writes in the April issue of The Atlantic that, "Nowhere in the field of medicine is treatment less grounded in modern science." Glaser, whose 2013 book, Her Best-Kept Secret, explores what she calls "the epidemic of female drinking" in the U.S., says recent research on the brain suggests that the abstinence advocated by AA isn't the only solution — or even the best for many people. Cognitive therapy combined with the medication naltrexone, Glaser says, can help ease cravings and has been shown in some studies to help some problem drinkers learn to drink moderately without quitting. Glaser's magazine story has drawn fire from defenders of AA, including Huffington Post writer Tommy Rosen, who calls himself "a person in long-term recovery (23 years) who overcame severe drug addiction and alcoholism in great part due to the 12 Steps." Glaser's article, Rosen writes, is "painfully one-sided." Therapist and psychology reporter Robi Ludwig told Glaser and the host of MSNBC's program All in With Chris Hayes last week that she thinks it's "very dangerous to put out the idea that AA doesn't work. Does it work for everybody? No. There's not going to be one form of treatment that works for everybody." © 2015 NPR

Related chapters from BP7e: Chapter 4: The Chemistry of Behavior: Neurotransmitters and Neuropharmacology
Related chapters from MM:Chapter 4: The Chemistry of Behavior: Neurotransmitters and Neuropharmacology
Link ID: 20729 - Posted: 03.28.2015

Claudia Dreifus Twenty-three states and the District of Columbia have legalized medical marijuana, but scientific research into its appropriate uses has lagged. Dr. Mark Ware would like to change that. Dr. Ware, 50, is the director of the Canadian Consortium for the Investigation of Cannabinoids and the director of clinical research of the Alan Edwards Pain Management Unit of McGill University Health Center. Medical marijuana has been legal in Canada for 16 years, and Dr. Ware, a practicing physician, studies how his patients take the drug and under what conditions it is effective. We spoke for two hours at the recent meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and later by telephone. Our interviews have been condensed and edited for space. Q. How did you become interested in the medical possibilities of cannabis? A. In the late 1990s, I was working in Kingston, Jamaica, at a clinic treating people with sickle cell anemia. My British father and Guyanese mother had raised me in Jamaica, and I’d attended medical school there. One day, an elderly Rastafarian came for his annual checkup. I asked him, “What are your choices of medicines?” He leaned over the table and said, “You must study the herb.” That night, I went back to my office and looked up “cannabis and pain.” What I found were countless anecdotes from patients who’d obtained marijuana either legally or not and who claimed good effect with a variety of pain-related conditions. There were also the eye-opening studies showing that the nervous system had specific receptors for cannabinoids and that these receptors were located in areas related to pain. Everything ended with, “More studies are needed.” So I thought, “This is what I should be doing; let’s go!” © 2015 The New York Times Company

Related chapters from BP7e: Chapter 4: The Chemistry of Behavior: Neurotransmitters and Neuropharmacology; Chapter 8: General Principles of Sensory Processing, Touch, and Pain
Related chapters from MM:Chapter 4: The Chemistry of Behavior: Neurotransmitters and Neuropharmacology; Chapter 5: The Sensorimotor System
Link ID: 20713 - Posted: 03.24.2015

By Brian Handwerk In the U.S., legal hurdles have long hampered research into marijuana. But as more states approve medical and even recreational marijuana, scientific inquiries have spiked, especially studies aimed at finding out what exactly is in today's weed—and what it does to our bodies. In Colorado, which made marijuana legal in November 2012, the latest results show that the pot lining store shelves is much more potent than the weed of 30 years ago. But the boost in power comes at a cost—modern marijuana mostly lacks the components touted as beneficial by medical marijuana advocates, and it is often contaminated with fungi, pesticides and heavy metals. “There's a stereotype, a hippy kind of mentality, that leads people to assume that growers are using natural cultivation methods and growing organically," says Andy LaFrate, founder of Charas Scientific, one of eight Colorado labs certified to test cannabis. "That's not necessarily the case at all." LaFrate presented his results this week at a meeting of the American Chemical Society (ACS) in Denver. LaFrate says he's been surprised at just how strong most of today's marijuana has become. His group has tested more than 600 strains of marijuana from dozens of producers. Potency tests, the only ones Colorado currently requires, looked at tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the psychoactive compound that produces the plant's famous high. They found that modern weed contains THC levels of 18 to 30 percent—double to triple the levels that were common in buds from the 1980s. That's because growers have cross-bred plants over the years to create more powerful strains, which today tout colorful names like Bruce Banner, Skunkberry and Blue Cookies.

Related chapters from BP7e: Chapter 4: The Chemistry of Behavior: Neurotransmitters and Neuropharmacology
Related chapters from MM:Chapter 4: The Chemistry of Behavior: Neurotransmitters and Neuropharmacology
Link ID: 20712 - Posted: 03.24.2015

By John Horgan In 1990 The New York Times published a front-page article by Lawrence Altman, a reporter with a medical degree, announcing that scientists had discovered “a link between alcoholism and a specific gene.” The evidence for the "feel-good gene," which supposedly reduces anxiety, is flimsy, just like the evidence linking specific genes to high intelligence, violent aggression, homosexuality, bipolar disorder and countless other complex human traits and ailments. That was merely one in a string of reports in which the Times and other major media hyped what turned out to be erroneous claims linking complex traits and disorders—from homosexuality and high intelligence to schizophrenia and bipolar disorder—to specific genes. I thought those days were over, and that scientists and the media have learned to doubt extremely reductionist genetic accounts of complex traits and behaviors. I was wrong. Last Sunday, the “Opinion” section of the Times published an essay, “The Feel-Good Gene,” which states: “For the first time, scientists have demonstrated that a genetic variation in the brain makes some people inherently less anxious, and more able to forget fearful and unpleasant experiences. This lucky genetic mutation produces higher levels of anandamide–the so-called bliss molecule and our natural marijuana–in our brains. In short, some people are prone to be less anxious simply because they won the genetic sweepstakes and randomly got a genetic mutation that has nothing at all to do with strength of character.” This article, like the one touting the alcoholism gene 25 years ago, was written by a physician, Richard Friedman, professor of psychiatry at Weill Cornell Medical College. I emphasize this fact because scientific hype is often blamed on supposedly ignorant journalists like me rather than on physicians and other so-called experts. © 2015 Scientific American

Related chapters from BP7e: Chapter 4: The Chemistry of Behavior: Neurotransmitters and Neuropharmacology; Chapter 7: Life-Span Development of the Brain and Behavior
Related chapters from MM:Chapter 4: The Chemistry of Behavior: Neurotransmitters and Neuropharmacology; Chapter 13: Memory, Learning, and Development
Link ID: 20689 - Posted: 03.14.2015

By Maggie Fox Teenagers who use marijuana heavily grow up to have poor memories and also have brain abnormalities, a new study shows. The study cannot say which came first — the brain structure differences or the pot use. But it suggests there could be long-term effects of heavy marijuana use. A team at Northwestern University looked at 97 volunteers with and without mental illness. The dope smokers said they'd used marijuana daily starting at age 16 or 17, and said they had not used other drugs. The daily marijuana users had an abnormally shaped hippocampus and performed about 18 percent more poorly on long-term memory tasks, the researchers reported in the journal Hippocampus. The hippocampus is a part of the brain used in storing long-term memory. "The memory processes that appear to be affected by cannabis are ones that we use every day to solve common problems and to sustain our relationships with friends and family," said Dr. John Csernansky, who worked on the study. Previous research by the same Northwestern team showed heavy pot smokers had poor short-term and working memory and abnormally shaped brain structures including the striatum, globus pallidus and thalamus. "It is possible that the abnormal brain structures reveal a pre-existing vulnerability to marijuana abuse," Matthew Smith, who led the study, said in a statement.

Related chapters from BP7e: Chapter 4: The Chemistry of Behavior: Neurotransmitters and Neuropharmacology; Chapter 17: Learning and Memory
Related chapters from MM:Chapter 4: The Chemistry of Behavior: Neurotransmitters and Neuropharmacology; Chapter 13: Memory, Learning, and Development
Link ID: 20687 - Posted: 03.14.2015

|By Anne Skomorowsky On a Saturday night last month, 12 students at Wesleyan University in Connecticut were poisoned by “Molly,” a hallucinogenic drug they had taken to enhance a campus party. Ambulances and helicopters transported the stricken to nearby hospitals, some in critical condition. Molly—the street name for the amphetamine MDMA—can cause extremely high fevers, liver failure, muscle breakdown, and cardiac arrest. Given the risks associated with Molly, why would anybody take it? The obvious answer—to get high—is only partly true. Like many drugs of abuse, Molly causes euphoria. But Molly is remarkable for its “prosocial” effects. Molly makes users feel friendly, loving, and strongly connected to one another. Molly is most commonly used in settings where communion with others is highly valued, such as raves, music festivals, and college parties. Recently, psychiatrists have taken an interest in its potential to enhance psychotherapy; this has led to new research into the mechanisms by which MDMA makes people feel closer. It appears that MDMA works by shifting the user’s attention towards positive experiences while minimizing the impact of negative feelings. To investigate this, a 2012 study by Cedric Hysek and colleagues used the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test (RMET), which was developed to evaluate people with autism. In the RMET, participants are shown 36 pictures of the eye region of faces. Their task is to describe what the person in the picture is feeling. Volunteers taking MDMA, under carefully controlled conditions, improved in their recognition of positive emotions; but their performance in recognizing negative emotions declined. In other words, they incorrectly attributed positive or neutral feelings to images that were actually negative in emotional tone. They mistook negative and threat-related images for friendly ones. © 2015 Scientific American

Related chapters from BP7e: Chapter 4: The Chemistry of Behavior: Neurotransmitters and Neuropharmacology
Related chapters from MM:Chapter 4: The Chemistry of Behavior: Neurotransmitters and Neuropharmacology
Link ID: 20678 - Posted: 03.12.2015

By RICHARD A. FRIEDMAN CHANCES are that everyone on this planet has experienced anxiety, that distinct sense of unease and foreboding. Most of us probably assume that anxiety always has a psychological trigger. Yet clinicians have long known that there are plenty of people who experience anxiety in the absence of any danger or stress and haven’t a clue why they feel distressed. Despite years of psychotherapy, many experience little or no relief. It’s as if they suffer from a mental state that has no psychological origin or meaning, a notion that would seem heretical to many therapists, particularly psychoanalysts. Recent neuroscience research explains why, in part, this may be the case. For the first time, scientists have demonstrated that a genetic variation in the brain makes some people inherently less anxious, and more able to forget fearful and unpleasant experiences. This lucky genetic mutation produces higher levels of anandamide — the so-called bliss molecule and our own natural marijuana — in our brains. In short, some people are prone to be less anxious simply because they won the genetic sweepstakes and randomly got a genetic mutation that has nothing at all to do with strength of character. About 20 percent of adult Americans have this mutation. Those who do may also be less likely to become addicted to marijuana and, possibly, other drugs — presumably because they don’t need the calming effects that marijuana provides. One patient of mine, a man in his late 40s, came to see me because he was depressed and lethargic. He told me at our first meeting that he had been using cannabis almost daily for at least the past 15 years. “It became a way of life,” he explained. “Things are more interesting, and I can tolerate disappointments without getting too upset.” © 2015 The New York Times Company

Related chapters from BP7e: Chapter 15: Emotions, Aggression, and Stress; Chapter 4: The Chemistry of Behavior: Neurotransmitters and Neuropharmacology
Related chapters from MM:Chapter 11: Emotions, Aggression, and Stress; Chapter 4: The Chemistry of Behavior: Neurotransmitters and Neuropharmacology
Link ID: 20666 - Posted: 03.09.2015

Zoe Cormier Data from population surveys in the United States challenge public fears that psychedelic drugs such as LSD can lead to psychosis and other mental-health conditions and to increased risk of suicide, two studies have found1, 2. In the first study, clinical psychologists Pål-Ørjan Johansen and Teri Suzanne Krebs, both at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology in Trondheim, scoured data from the US National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), an annual random sample of the general population, and analysed answers from more than 135,000 people who took part in surveys from 2008 to 2011. Of those, 14% described themselves as having used at any point in their lives any of the three ‘classic’ psychedelics: LSD, psilocybin (the active ingredient in so-called magic mushrooms) and mescaline (found in the peyote and San Pedro cacti). The researchers found that individuals in this group were not at increased risk of developing 11 indicators of mental-health problems such as schizophrenia, psychosis, depression, anxiety disorders and suicide attempts. Their paper appears in the March issue of the Journal of Psychopharmacology1. The findings are likely to raise eyebrows. Fears that psychedelics can lead to psychosis date to the 1960s, with widespread reports of “acid casualties” in the mainstream news. But Krebs says that because psychotic disorders are relatively prevalent, affecting about one in 50 people, correlations can often be mistaken for causations. “Psychedelics are psychologically intense, and many people will blame anything that happens for the rest of their lives on a psychedelic experience.” © 2015 Nature Publishing Group,

Related chapters from BP7e: Chapter 16: Psychopathology: Biological Basis of Behavior Disorders; Chapter 4: The Chemistry of Behavior: Neurotransmitters and Neuropharmacology
Related chapters from MM:Chapter 12: Psychopathology: Biological Basis of Behavioral Disorders; Chapter 4: The Chemistry of Behavior: Neurotransmitters and Neuropharmacology
Link ID: 20655 - Posted: 03.05.2015

by Michael Slezak If you want to counteract the effects of getting drunk, a big dose of the so-called "cuddle-chemical" oxytocin might be the answer. Oxytocin has important roles in sexual behaviour and social bonding, and has previously been investigated as a way to help wean alcoholics off drink. While studying this effect in rats, Michael Bowen from the University of Sydney noticed something strange. Rats that had been given oxytocin didn't seem to get drunk. "Those that had the oxytocin were up and moving about as if they hadn't had any alcohol at all, whereas the ones that didn't have oxytocin were quite heavily sedated," Bowen says. This effect was confirmed in a second experiment, in which half the rats were given an injection of oxytocin straight into the brain, at a level about 150,000 times what would normally be found there. They were then given alcohol, after which researchers tested their motor control and reaction times. Oxytocin seemed to completely counteract the effects of the booze – even when a rat had consumed what would be equivalent to about one and a half bottles of wine in humans. "The rats that had received oxytocin, as well as the alcohol, were virtually indistinguishable from the rats that hadn't received any alcohol at all," says Bowen. This could be thanks to the brain's GABA receptors, where alcohol is thought to exert its intoxicating effects. Bowen's team found that oxytocin was binding to two parts of these receptors, blocking alcohol from getting there. "It was actually preventing alcohol affecting these sites in the brain that make you intoxicated." © Copyright Reed Business Information Ltd

Related chapters from BP7e: Chapter 4: The Chemistry of Behavior: Neurotransmitters and Neuropharmacology; Chapter 5: Hormones and the Brain
Related chapters from MM:Chapter 4: The Chemistry of Behavior: Neurotransmitters and Neuropharmacology; Chapter 8: Hormones and Sex
Link ID: 20604 - Posted: 02.24.2015

Charles F. Zorumski It is indeed possible for a person to get intoxicated and not remember what she or he did. This state is called a “blackout” or, more precisely, a “memory blackout.” During a blackout a person is intoxicated but awake and interacting with the environment in seemingly meaningful ways, such as holding a conversation or driving a car. After the period of intoxication, usually the next day, the person has no or, at best, vague recall for events that occurred while inebriated. At times, being in this state can have disastrous consequences, such as waking up in an unknown or unsafe place, losing personal possessions or participating in risky behaviors. On the neural level, a blackout is a period of anterograde amnesia. That is, a person's ability to form new memories becomes impaired. Although a person does not lose previously learned information, he or she may also find it more difficult to recall certain facts while intoxicated. Yet once a person sobers up, his or her memory and ability to learn new information are not permanently affected. How alcohol, or ethanol, produces a memory blackout is not completely understood. It is clear, however, that alcohol can impair a process in brain cells called long-term potentiation (LTP), a cellular mechanism thought to underlie memory formation, particularly in the hippocampus. © 2015 Scientific American

Related chapters from BP7e: Chapter 4: The Chemistry of Behavior: Neurotransmitters and Neuropharmacology; Chapter 17: Learning and Memory
Related chapters from MM:Chapter 4: The Chemistry of Behavior: Neurotransmitters and Neuropharmacology; Chapter 13: Memory, Learning, and Development
Link ID: 20603 - Posted: 02.24.2015

A dozen university students have been treated at Connecticut hospitals after overdosing on "Molly" or MDMA, a popular synthetic party drug. Police are investigating after the overdoses were reported late Sunday on the campus of Wesleyan University in Middletown, Connecticut. By Monday, eight remained in hospital and two were in critical condition. It was unclear whether the students had been together or where the drugs had come from. Middletown Police Chief William McKenna said that their "first and foremost goal is to obtain information on the batch of Molly that was distributed to the students on the campus," adding, "this information is critical in ensuring the recovery of those students affected." A pure and more powerful form of MDMA often sold as "Molly" can cause liver, kidney, cardiovascular failure, or death. In a campus-wide statement, Wesleyan president Michael S Roth urged students to "please, please stay away from illegal substances, the use of which can put you in extreme danger. One mistake can change your life forever". Dean Michael Whaley, vice president of student affairs at Wesleyan University, sent a letter to the school body on Sunday recommending students to check on their friends. Ten of the 12 people were Wesleyan students. In 2013, Molly-related deaths and illnesses forced the Electric Zoo Festival in New York to shut down early after two young people died and four were confined to hospital.

Related chapters from BP7e: Chapter 4: The Chemistry of Behavior: Neurotransmitters and Neuropharmacology
Related chapters from MM:Chapter 4: The Chemistry of Behavior: Neurotransmitters and Neuropharmacology
Link ID: 20602 - Posted: 02.24.2015

|By Roni Jacobson Several pharmaceutical drugs promise to help addicts quit, and many people embrace the ease of popping a pill. Yet research continues to show that although medication can help, support networks and therapy targeting the underlying behaviors are still the best available ways to kick addiction over the long term. In addition, some of these medications come with scary side effects—hundreds of people have reportedly committed suicide while on the smoking-cessation drug Chantix, for example. Read on for short profiles of the addiction drugs currently on the market, as well as a few compounds that may hit shelves soon. © 2015 Scientific American,

Related chapters from BP7e: Chapter 4: The Chemistry of Behavior: Neurotransmitters and Neuropharmacology
Related chapters from MM:Chapter 4: The Chemistry of Behavior: Neurotransmitters and Neuropharmacology
Link ID: 20601 - Posted: 02.24.2015

Boer Deng Smoking marijuana may stoke a yearning for crisps, but understanding how it affects hunger is relevant not just to those who indulge in it. The drug has yielded a ripe target for scientists who seek to stimulate or suppress appetite: the receptor CB1, found in cells throughout the body. When activated by the anti-nausea drug dronabinol — which is also a component of marijuana (Cannabis sativa) — CB1 prompts the release of hunger-promoting hormones1. And suppressing its activity is thought to aid in weight loss2. But the mechanism by which the receptor kills or kindles appetite is not entirely understood. Now neuroscientist Tamas Horvath, of Yale University in New Haven, and colleagues report in Nature that nerve cells called pro-opiomelanocortin (POMC) neurons play a key role in this process3. POMC had generally been thought to promote satiation, but Horvath's team found that POMC neurons in the brain release not just a hunger-suppressing hormone, but also one that promotes appetite. Which hormone is secreted is regulated by a protein in the cells' mitochondria, structures that regulate energy levels. When the CB1 receptor is activated, this mitochondrial protein induces POMC to switch from secreting the substance that suppresses gorging to one that encourages it. The finding is intriguing, says Uberto Pagotto, a neuroscientist at the University of Bologna who has studied cannabinoids for many years. “It gives us a different starting point to look at CB1 receptors and the mitochondria,” he says. © 2015 Nature Publishing Group

Related chapters from BP7e: Chapter 13: Homeostasis: Active Regulation of the Internal Environment; Chapter 4: The Chemistry of Behavior: Neurotransmitters and Neuropharmacology
Related chapters from MM:Chapter 9: Homeostasis: Active Regulation of the Internal Environment; Chapter 4: The Chemistry of Behavior: Neurotransmitters and Neuropharmacology
Link ID: 20592 - Posted: 02.18.2015

By Abigail Zuger, M.D. I had intended to discuss President Obama’s plans for personalized precision medicine with my patient Barbara last week, but she missed her appointment. Or, more accurately, she arrived two hours late, made the usual giant fuss at the reception desk and had to be rescheduled. I was disappointed. Barbara has some insight into the vortex of her own complications, and I thought she might help organize my thoughts. Mr. Obama announced last month that his new budget included $215 million toward the creation of a national databank of medical information, intended to associate specific gene patterns with various diseases and to predict what genetic, lifestyle and environmental factors correlate with successful treatment. Once all those relationships are clarified, the path will open to drugs or other interventions that firm up the good links and interrupt the bad ones. This step up the scientific ladder of medicine has many advocates. Researchers who sequence the genome are enthusiastic, as are those with a financial interest in the technology. Also celebrating are doctors and patients in the cancer community, where genetic data already informs some treatment choices and where the initial thrust of the initiative and much of its funding will be directed. Skeptics point out that genetic medicine, for all its promise, has delivered relatively few clinical benefits. And straightforward analyses of lifestyle and environment effects on health may occasionally lead to clear-cut advice (don’t smoke), but more often sow confusion, as anyone curious about the best way to lose weight or the optimal quantity of dietary salt knows. Without Barbara’s presence, I was left to ponder her medical record, a 20-year saga that might be titled “Genes, Lifestyle and Environment.” and published as a cautionary tale. © 2015 The New York Times Company

Related chapters from BP7e: Chapter 4: The Chemistry of Behavior: Neurotransmitters and Neuropharmacology; Chapter 7: Life-Span Development of the Brain and Behavior
Related chapters from MM:Chapter 4: The Chemistry of Behavior: Neurotransmitters and Neuropharmacology; Chapter 13: Memory, Learning, and Development
Link ID: 20590 - Posted: 02.18.2015

By Lizzie Wade SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA—Humans have been using cannabis for more than 5000 years. So why don’t scientists know more about it? Three experts gathered here at the annual meeting of AAAS (which publishes Science) to discuss what scientists and doctors know about the drug and what they still need to learn. “By the end of this session, you’ll know more about cannabis than your physician does,” said Mark Ware, a family physician at the McGill University Health Center in Montreal, Canada, who organized the talk. How does marijuana work? Our brains are primed to respond to marijuana, because “there are chemicals in our own bodies that act like THC [the psychoactive ingredient in pot]” and other compounds in cannabis called cannabinoids, explained Roger Pertwee, a neuropharmacologist at the University of Aberdeen in the United Kingdom who has studied cannabinoids since the 1960s. Cannabinoids produced by our bodies or ingested through marijuana use react with a series of receptors in our brains called the endocannabinoid system, which is involved in appetite, mood, memory, and pain sensation. Scientists have discovered 104 cannabinoids so far, but “the pharmacology of most of them has yet to be investigated,” Pertwee said. What are the known medical uses of marijuana? Marijuana has been used for decades to stimulate appetite and treat nausea and vomiting, especially in patients undergoing chemotherapy. Its success in easing the symptoms of multiple sclerosis patients led to the development of Sativex, a drug manufactured by GW Pharmaceuticals that includes THC and cannabidiol (CBD), a cannabinoid that isn’t psychoactive. © 2015 American Association for the Advancement of Science

Related chapters from BP7e: Chapter 4: The Chemistry of Behavior: Neurotransmitters and Neuropharmacology; Chapter 3: Neurophysiology: The Generation, Transmission, and Integration of Neural Signals
Related chapters from MM:Chapter 4: The Chemistry of Behavior: Neurotransmitters and Neuropharmacology; Chapter 3: Neurophysiology: The Generation, Transmission, and Integration of Neural Signals
Link ID: 20582 - Posted: 02.16.2015

Smoking potent cannabis was linked to 24% of new psychosis cases analysed in a study by King's College London. The research suggests the risk of psychosis is three times higher for users of potent "skunk-like" cannabis than for non-users. The study of 780 people was carried out by KCL's Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience. A Home Office spokesman said the report underlines the reasons why cannabis is illegal. Scientists found the risk of psychosis was five times higher for those who use it every day compared with non-users. They also concluded the use of hash, a milder form of the drug, was not associated with increased risk of psychosis. Psychosis refers to delusions or hallucinations that can be present in certain psychiatric conditions such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. "Compared with those who had never tried cannabis, users of high potency skunk-like cannabis had a threefold increase in risk of psychosis,' said Dr Marta Di Forti, lead author on the research. She added: "The results show that psychosis risk in cannabis users depends on both the frequency of use and cannabis potency." Dr Di Forti told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that the availability of skunk-like cannabis was becoming more widespread. "In London, it's very difficult to find anything else," she said. "There were lots of reports from police across the UK saying we have become a great producer of skunk. And not only do we use it locally but we export, so this is a Made in England product." Someone suffering from psychosis would often be "extremely paranoid and become very suspicious" about the people around them, she added. She has called for "a clear public message" to cannabis users, comparable to medical advice on alcohol and tobacco. © 2015 BBC

Related chapters from BP7e: Chapter 16: Psychopathology: Biological Basis of Behavior Disorders; Chapter 4: The Chemistry of Behavior: Neurotransmitters and Neuropharmacology
Related chapters from MM:Chapter 12: Psychopathology: Biological Basis of Behavioral Disorders; Chapter 4: The Chemistry of Behavior: Neurotransmitters and Neuropharmacology
Link ID: 20581 - Posted: 02.16.2015