Testing the association between tobacco and cannabis use and cognitive functioning: Findings from an observational and Mendelian randomization study

Observational analyses

Exposure variables

Information on tobacco and cannabis use were collected on six occasions via questionnaire (Q) or during attendance at a study clinic (C). Median ages at response were: 13y(C), 14y(Q), 15y(C) 16y(Q), 17y(C), and 18y(Q).

Tobacco use

Patterns of tobacco use have been described in detail elsewhere (34). Responses to one or more questions at each time point were used to derive a repeated four-level ordinal variable with categories ‘Non-smoker’, ‘Occasional smoker’ (typically less than once per week), ‘Weekly smoker’ and ‘Daily smoker’. There was good agreement that a four-class solution was adequate in explaining the heterogeneity in tobacco based on model fit criteria (see Table S1a). The four-class model (n=8,525) comprised individuals with a higher probability of ‘early-onset regular smokers’ (3.4%), ‘late-onset regular smokers’ (11.6%), ‘experimenters’ (17.4%), and ‘non-smokers’ (67.5%) (Figure 1a).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1a. Distribution of tobacco use across latent classes at each timepoint (n=8,525). Class proportions based on estimated posterior probability¹.

¹Tobacco use at age 13 was omitted from the figure as ‘daily smoking’ was not recorded at this age. Overall, the ‘non-users’ reported a low probability of tobacco use across all measurement occasions; ‘experimenters’ were mostly characterised by smoking on the later measurement occasions only; ‘late-onset regular’ smokers were mostly characterised by smoking on a daily basis in the later measurement occasions only; while ‘early-onset regular’ smokers were mostly characterised by smoking on a daily basis across timepoints from age 14 years onwards.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1b. Distribution of cannabis use across latent classes at each timepoint (n=8,093). Class proportions based on estimated posterior probability².

²The ‘non users’ reported a low probability of cannabis use across all measurement occasions; ‘late-onset occasional’ cannabis users were mostly characterised by cannabis use on the later measurement occasions only; ‘early-onset occasional’ cannabis users were mostly characterised by occasional cannabis use across all measurements; while ‘regular cannabis users’ were mostly characterised by cannabis use across timepoints with increasing involvement from age 15 years onwards.

Cannabis use

Patterns of cannabis use have been described in detail elsewhere (35). Responses to one or more questions at each time point were used to derive a repeated three-level ordinal variable with categories ‘Do not use’, ‘Occasional use’ (typically less than once per week) and ‘Frequent use’ (typically once per week or more). There was good agreement that a four-class solution was adequate in explaining the heterogeneity in cannabis use based on model fit criteria (see Table S1b). The four-class model (n=8,093) comprised individuals with a higher probability of ‘early-onset regular users’ (3.6%), ‘early-onset occasional users’ (2.9%), ‘late-onset occasional users’ (13.8%), and ‘non-users’ (79.8%) (Figure 1b).

Outcome variables

At 24 years of age (M=24.0 years; SD=9.8 months) participants attended a clinic- based assessment which included computerised cognitive assessments as part of a broader assessment battery of mental and physical health and behaviour. Data collection for the online questionnaires was collected and managed by REDcap electronic data capture tools (36,37). Further information on all three cognitive tasks is presented in Supplementary material.

Working memory

The N-back task (2-back condition) was used to assess working memory. The N-back task (38) is widely used to measure working memory (39–41). A measure of discriminability (d′) was chosen as the primary outcome measure given it is an overall performance estimate. High scores on number of hits indicated more accurate identification, while high scores on false alarms indicated less accurate identification. High scores on d′, therefore, indicated a greater ability to distinguish signal from noise. d′ data were available for n=3,242 participants.

Response inhibition

The Stop Signal Task (42) was used to assess response inhibition – the ability to prevent an ongoing motor response. The task consisted of 256 trials, which included a 4:1 ratio of trials without stop signals to trials with stop signals. Mean response times were calculated. An estimate of stop signal reaction time (SSRT) was calculated using the median of the inhibition function approach (43). SSRT used as the primary outcome as it is a reliable measure of inhibitory control, with shorter reaction times indicating faster inhibition. SSRT data were available for 3,201 participants.

Emotion recognition

Emotion recognition was assessed using a six alternative forced choice (6AFC) emotion recognition task (44) comprising of 96 trials (16 for each emotion) which measures the ability to identify emotions in facial expressions that vary in intensity. In each trial, participants were presented with a face displaying one of six emotions: anger, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness, or surprise. Participants were required to select the descriptor that best described the emotion that was present in the face, using the computer mouse. Emotion intensity varied across 8 levels within each emotion from the prototypical emotion to an almost neutral face. Each individual stimulus was presented twice, giving a total of 96 trials. An overall measure of ER (the number of facial emotions accurately identified) was used as the primary outcome. ER data were available for n=3,368 participants.

Potential confounders

Confounders comprised of established risk factors for cognitive functioning that could plausibly have a relationship with earlier substance use. Potential confounders included: income, maternal education, socioeconomic position, housing tenure, sex, and maternal smoking during first trimester in pregnancy. Working memory at approximately 11 years and experience of a head injury/unconsciousness up to 11 years were included to control for cognitive functioning prior to baseline measures of substance use. The inclusion of both measures helps to control for the possibility that the onset of substance use is caused by impaired or lower cognitive performance, thereby allowing for the temporal order between substance use and later cognitive functioning to be established. Finally, a measure of alcohol use asking whether they had ever had a whole drink of alcohol was collected at age 13 years (up to the first assessment of smoking and cannabis use). Further information is presented in Supplementary material.

Mendelian randomization (MR)

Two-sample MR was used to test the hypothesised causal effect of smoking initiation and lifetime cannabis use on cognitive functioning. The two-sample MR approach requires summary level data from GWAS, enabling SNP-outcome and SNP-exposure effects to be derived from different data sources. As the genetic instrument for smoking we used 378- independent genome-wide significant SNPs associated with smoking initiation identified by the GWAS & Sequencing Consortium of Alcohol and Nicotine use (GSCAN https://gscan.sph.umich.edu/) based on a total sample of ∼1,200,000 individuals. We used 8-independent genome-wide significant SNPs associated with lifetime cannabis use based on the largest GWAS to date (n=184,765) (47). As outcomes, we used GWAS conducted in ALSPAC (n∼2,500) for each of our three primary outcome measures: i) working memory assessed using d’; ii) response inhibition assessed using SSRT; and iii) emotion recognition assessed using total number of correctly identified emotions (48).

Analyses were performed using the TwoSampleMR R package, part of MR-Base (49). The inverse-variance weighted (IVW) approach was used as a primary analysis, with three complementary estimation methods as sensitivity analyses which each make different assumptions about the nature of horizontal pleiotropy (where the genetic variant associates with the outcome via an independent pathway to the exposure): MR Egger (50), weighted median (51), and weighted mode (52). A consistent effect across all of these methods would provide the most confidence that any observed effects are not due to pleiotropy.

Next, one-sample MR analyses using two-stage least squares (2SLS) regression models with robust standard errors was used to examine the full GRS for smoking initiation (378 SNPs) as an instrument for smoking initiation and cannabis use (8 SNPs) as an instrument for lifetime cannabis use in relation to the three cognitive assessments at 24 years of age. Using individual-level data, the first stage involves regressing tobacco/cannabis use upon individual smoking initiation/lifetime cannabis use SNPs. Lifetime tobacco use (n=1,638/5,107) (32%) up to age 15 years and lifetime cannabis use (n=1,348/5,319) (25%) up to age 24 years were chosen as exposures. Each of the cognitive outcomes were then regressed on the fitted values from the stage 1 for tobacco and cannabis use in the second stage. The three key assumptions in MR are 1) the genetic instrument is robustly associated with the exposure of interest; 2) confounders of the exposure-outcome association are not associated with the genetic instrument; and 3) the genetic instrument is not associated with the outcome other than through its association with the exposure; see (30) for a full description. Power calculations conducted for one-sample MR analyses using mRnd (53) indicated that we had 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.24 for smoking initiation and 0.15 for lifetime cannabis use using a sample size of n∼3,300 (individuals who had available cognitive data in ALSPAC).

Observational analyses

Emotion recognition – 6AFC task

Unadjusted and adjusted associations between patterns of tobacco/cannabis use from 13 to 18 years and emotion recognition at age 24 are presented in Tables 3a and 3b. There was evidence to suggest that late-onset regular smokers (b=-0.02, 95%CI=-0.03 to - 0.00), and early-onset regular (b=-0.04, 95%CI=-0.08 to -0.01) showed poorer emotion recognition compared to non-smokers in the fully adjusted models. There was insufficient evidence of an association between other patterns of tobacco/cannabis use and emotion recognition. There was some evidence in the sensitivity models to suggest late-onset regular tobacco users had poorer ability to identify ‘fear’ and ‘surprise’, while early-onset regular tobacco users had poorer ability to identify ‘sad’ in the fully adjusted models (Table S7d). Early- and late-onset occasional cannabis users had better ability to identify ‘anger’ and ‘disgust’, while late-onset occasional cannabis users had poorer ability to identify ‘happy’ in the fully adjusted models (Table 8d).

Genetic analyses

Information testing whether the genetic instruments are associated with the confounders are presented in the Supplementary Material (Tables S9a and S9b).

Two-sample Mendelian randomization

Two-sample MR methods provided little evidence to suggest that SNPs associated with smoking initiation were a causal risk factor for deficits in cognitive functioning (Table S4a). Focusing on the IVW estimate as the primary measure, SNPs associated with smoking initiation were not associated with working memory (b=-0.02 95%CI=-0.20 to 0.15; p=0.52); response inhibition (b=-0.06 95%CI=-0.24 to 0.12; p=0.31); or emotion recognition (b=0.00 95%CI=-0.18 to 0.18; p=0.97). Other sensitivity estimates tended to be in the same direction and failed to demonstrate smoking initiation as a causal risk factor for deficits in cognitive functioning.

Similarly, there was little evidence to suggest that SNPs associated with lifetime cannabis use was a causal risk factor for deficits in cognitive functioning (Table S4b). Focusing on the IVW estimate as the primary measure, SNPs associated with lifetime cannabis use were not associated with working memory (b=0.28 95%CI=-0.16 to 0.70; p=0.21); response inhibition (b=-0.13 95%CI=-0.47 to 0.22; p=0.47); or emotion recognition (b=-0.08 95%CI=-0.52 to 0.36; p=0.71). All other sensitivity estimates were in the same direction and failed to demonstrate cannabis use as a causal risk factor for deficits in cognitive functioning.

One-sample Mendelian randomization

Results from the one-sample MR provided little evidence to suggest that smoking initiation or lifetime cannabis use were causal risk factors for deficits in cognitive functioning (Table 5). SNPs associated with smoking initiation were not associated with working memory (b=0.01 95%CI=-0.06 to 0.29; p=0.21); response inhibition (b=0.16 95%CI=-0.03 to 0.35; p=0.10); or emotion recognition (b=0.00 95%CI=-0.18 to 0.18; p=0.97). Similarly, SNPs associated with lifetime cannabis use were not associated with working memory (b=-0.37 95%CI=-0.72 to -0.02; p=0.04); response inhibition (b=0.04 95%CI=-0.32 to 0.39; p=0.85); or emotion recognition (b=-0.08 95%CI=-0.52 to 0.36; p=0.71).

Comparison with previous studies

To our knowledge, this is the first study to assess the relationship between tobacco and cannabis use, and subsequent cognitive functioning using a combination of observational and genetic epidemiological approaches. Overall, we found an adverse associations between tobacco/cannabis use and working memory, response inhibition, and emotion recognition in ALSPAC, in that those who initiated use at earlier and later ages, and in those with more frequent use. These findings contribute to a literature of mixed findings regarding the direction of association between tobacco and cannabis exposure and subsequent cognition by suggesting that adolescent tobacco and cannabis use precede observed reductions in cognitive function. These findings support studies that have demonstrated effects may depend on the frequency, duration, and age at onset of use (20,21,54–59).

Our study extends previous findings in a number of ways. First, the observational study was better powered than most of the previous studies as it used data from over 3,200 participants providing information spanning birth to 24 years of age. Second, identifying heterogeneous patterns of tobacco and cannabis use across this crucial period allows individuals who follow markedly different developmental trajectories to be captured (27,28). Third, the cognitive measures were assessed at a time when they are expected to have reached maturity (2–5), in comparison to previous studies which have examined cognitive functioning at earlier ages while they are still maturing. Examining mature levels of cognitive functioning reduces the possibility that cognitive functioning is influencing earlier tobacco and cannabis use, effects that cannot be disentangled in purely cross-sectional studies. Further, our ability to control for earlier measures of cognitive functioning and substance use, prior to the baseline measures of tobacco and cannabis use helps to rule out the possibility of reverse causation. Fourth, our study sought to examine specificity in cognitive functioning, by using well-validated tests to probe different domains of cognitive functioning instead of focusing on general intelligence. Finally, we sought to triangulate our results by using one- and two-sample MR approaches to assess tobacco and cannabis use as causal risk factors for cognitive functioning. This approach can help to overcome the main sources of bias from classical observational approaches, by providing a more reliable estimate of the likely underlying causal relationship.

Limitations

There are limitations to this study that should be considered. First, the ALSPAC cohort suffers from attrition, which is higher among the socially disadvantaged (60). We attempted to minimize the effect of drop-out by using multiple imputation, FIML, and inverse probability weighting which assume MAR missing patterns. Although it is not possible to test the MAR assumption, it was made more plausible as a number of SES variables were found to predict whether participants attended the clinic or not (Table S1).

Second, tobacco and cannabis use were self-reported. However, there is evidence to suggest that self-reported assessments are reliable and valid methods (61), and the assessment of tobacco and cannabis use yearly over 6 years in a latent variable framework helps to account for measurement error (62). Third, it is likely that both the one- and two- sample MR analyses are underpowered. However, findings using weak instruments tend to bias findings towards the null in the two-sample setting and toward the outcome-risk association in the one-sample setting (63). Finally, it is possible that the direction of the association could work in both ways, that is, impairments in cognitive functioning may precede (and increase the risk of developing) tobacco and cannabis use (21,64–66). We were able to include a number of measures to maximize the robustness of our findings: (i) ascertaining the temporal order of exposures and outcomes; (ii) controlling for premorbid working memory and brain insults prior to measures of tobacco/cannabis use helped to reduce the possibility of cognitive impairments, or lower cognitive abilities in childhood, influencing tobacco/cannabis use; and (iii) it is possible that a common risk factor is influencing both tobacco/cannabis use and lower cognitive function, however MR methods helps to protect against this possibility by minimizing bias from reverse causation and residual confounding.

Implications and conclusions

Using a triangulation approach of three separate methods, each with different limitations and potential sources of bias, our study contributes to the understanding of the relationship between adolescent tobacco and cannabis use, and subsequent cognitive functioning. Overall, there was observational evidence that adolescent tobacco and cannabis use were associated with subsequent cognitive functioning, highlighting impairments in a range of cognitive domains, including working memory, response inhibition and emotion recognition. Our findings lend support to the developmental vulnerability hypothesis, in that, tobacco and cannabis use in adolescence, when the brain is undergoing critical development, may have neurotoxic effects. Better powered genetically informed studies are required to determine whether these associations are causal.