Prenatal cannabis exposure and childhood outcomes: Results from the ABCD study

Sarah E. Paul, Alexander Hatoum, Jeremy D. Fine, Emma C. Johnson, Isabella Hansen, Nicole R. Karcher, Allison L. Moreau, Erin Bondy, Yueyue Qu, Ebony B. Carter, Cynthia E Rogers, Arpana Agrawal, Deanna M. Barch, Ryan Bogdan
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2019.12.18.19015164

ABSTRACT

Importance In light of increasing cannabis use among pregnant women, the Surgeon General of the United States issued an advisory against the use of marijuana during pregnancy on August 29th, 2019.

Objective To determine whether cannabis use during pregnancy is associated with adverse outcomes among offspring.

Design Cross-sectional analysis of the baseline session of the ongoing longitudinal Adolescent Brain and Cognitive Development (ABCD) study.

Setting Data were collected from 22 sites across the United States between 2016 and 2018.

Participants Children ages 9-11 (n=11,489) and their parent or caregiver.

Exposure Prenatal marijuana exposure prior to and following maternal knowledge of pregnancy.

Main Outcomes and Measures Child psychopathology symptomatology (i.e., psychotic-like experiences and internalizing, externalizing, attention, thought, and social problems), cognition, sleep, birth weight, gestational age at birth, body mass index (BMI), and brain structure (i.e., total intracranial volume, white matter volume, gray matter volume). Covariates included familial (e.g., income, familial psychopathology), pregnancy (e.g., prenatal vitamin use, whether the pregnancy was planned), and child (e.g., birth weight, substance use) variables.

Results Among 11,489 children (age 9.9±0.6 years; 47.78% female), 655 (5.70%) were prenatally exposed to cannabis in total. Marijuana use prior to (n=648; 5.64%) and following (n=242; 2.11%) maternal knowledge of pregnancy were associated with increased offspring psychopathology characteristics (i.e., psychotic-like experiences and internalizing, externalizing, attention, thought, social, and sleep problems) and BMI as well as reduced cognition, birth weight, and brain structure (i.e., total white and gray mater volumes; all psfdr<.007), but not gestational age at birth. Exposure following maternal knowledge of pregnancy remained significantly associated with psychopathology, cognition, and birth weight outcomes when including potentially confounding variables (all ps<0.046). All associations with exposure prior to maternal knowledge of pregnancy were nonsignificant when considering potentially confounding variables (all ps>0.06).

Conclusions and Relevance Prenatal cannabis exposure, and its correlated factors, may increase risk for psychopathology and reduced cognition during middle childhood as well as reduced birthweight. Consistent with recent recommendations by the Surgeon General, marijuana use during pregnancy should be discouraged.

INTRODUCTION

Alongside increasingly permissive sociocultural attitudes and laws surrounding cannabis,1 past month use among pregnant women increased by 106% from 2002(3.4%) to 2017(7.0%) in the United States.2 Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the psychoactive component of cannabis, crosses the placenta3 and interfaces with the endocannabinoid system, which critically influences neural development.3-5 Thus, it is plausible that cannabis use during pregnancy may impact offspring. Indeed, the alarming increase of cannabis use among pregnant mothers,2,6-8 and evidence linking prenatal exposure to adverse outcomes in children9-13 prompted the Surgeon General of the United States to release an advisory against cannabis use during pregnancy and breastfeeding on August 29th 2019.14

Despite the increasing prevalence of prenatal cannabis exposure, there have been relatively few investigations of its association with child outcomes. These studies have found evidence linking prenatal marijuana exposure to reduced birth weight15 and cognition16,17 as well as heightened risk for premature birth,18 psychopathology (i.e., psychosis, internalizing, externalizing)19-21 and sleep problems22 among children. However, there has been limited cross-study replication,e.g.,23-25 and studies have typically been unable to account for other potential confounding factors (e.g., maternal education, prenatal vitamin usage, child substance use, familial risk), leaving it possible that associations between prenatal marijuana exposure and negative outcomes among children may not be independent of them. Indeed, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine recently concluded that only reduced birth weight has been robustly linked to prenatal cannabis exposure.13

Using data from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) study (data release 2.0.1) of 11,875 children, we test whether prenatal marijuana exposure before and after maternal knowledge of pregnancy is associated with psychopathology (i.e., internalizing, externalizing, attention, thought and social problems, psychotic-like experiences), sleep, cognition, birth weight, premature birth, body mass index (BMI), and gross brain structure (i.e., white and gray matter volumes as well as intracranial volume). This represents a comprehensive extension of our prior investigation of prenatal cannabis exposure and psychotic-like experiences among the initial ABCD data release (n=4,361).26 We hypothesized that prenatal marijuana exposure before and after maternal knowledge of pregnancy would be associated with greater risk for psychopathology, premature birth, and sleep problems, as well as reduced cognition, birth weight, BMI, and brain structure metrics when not considering potentially confounding variables. However, given that endocannabinoid receptors are not expressed in the fetus until 5-6 weeks9,27,28 which roughly corresponds to when, in this study, mothers learned that they were pregnant (6.91 ± 6.75 weeks), we hypothesized that these associations would only be robust to the inclusion of potentially confounding covariates when marijuana use occurred following maternal knowledge of pregnancy.

METHODS

Participants

Data came from children (n=11,875; Mage = 9.9±0.6 years; 47.85% girls; 74.13% White), born between 2005 and 2009 to 9,987 mothers through 10,801 pregnancies, who completed the baseline session of the ongoing longitudinal Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) study (data release 2.0.1; https://abcdstudy.org/).29 The study includes a family-based design in which twin (n=2,108), triplet (n=30), non-twin siblings (n=1,589), and singletons (n=8,148) were recruited. All parents/caregivers (85.3% biological mothers)a and children provided written informed consent and verbal assent, respectively, to a research protocol approved by the institutional review board at each data collection site (n=22)b throughout the United States (https://abcdstudy.org/sites/abcd-sites.html). For our analyses, only data from participants with non-missing data on prenatal cannabis exposure were included (n=11,489 [87.6% of parent/caregivers were biological mothers]; Mage = 9.9±0.6 years; 47.78% girls; 74.76% self-reported White; 2,072 twins, 30 triplets, 1,523 non-twin siblings, 7,864 singletons; Table 1).

View this table:
Table 1.

ABCD Sample Characteristics.

Measures

All measures are described in the Supplement and Table 1.

Prenatal Cannabis Exposure

Child prenatal marijuana exposure before (n=648) or after (n=242) maternal knowledge of pregnancy were coded as separate dichotomous variables based upon parent/caregivera retrospective report.

Psychotic-like experiences

The total score of the Prodromal Questionnaire-Brief Child Version (PQ-BC)30,31 was used to assess child-reported psychotic-like experiences (PLEs). Higher scores indicate more PLEs.

Internalizing, Externalizing, Attention, Thought, and Social Problems

The Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL)32 was used to assess broad spectrum internalizing (INT) and externalizing (EXT) as well as attention (ATN), thought (THT), and social (SOC) problems in children according to parent/caregiver report. Higher scores are reflective of more problems.

Sleep Problems

The total score of the Sleep Disturbance Scale for Children (SDSC)33 was used to assess parent/caregiver-reported sleep problems in children. Higher scores reflect more sleep problems.

Cognition

The National Institutes of Health Toolbox Cognition Battery–Total Cognition Composite34 indexed child cognitive ability. Higher scores are reflective of greater cognitive performance.

Gestational Age at Birth, Birth Weight and Body Mass Index

A parent/caregiver retrospectively reported their child’s gestational age at birth in weeks and birth weight. BMI was calculated using measured height and weight at the baseline assessment.

Brain Structure: Total Intracranial, White Matter, and Gray Matter Volumes

Freesurfer v5.3 was used to estimate total intracranial volume (ICV), gray matter volume (GMV), and white matter volume (WMV).

Covariates

The following variables were dummy coded: race/ethnicity, family history of psychopathology, prenatal exposure to tobacco or alcohol before or after maternal knowledge of pregnancy, unplanned pregnancy, prenatal vitamin usage, child alcohol try, child tobacco try, child self-reported gender, and twin/triplet status. Annual household income was treated as a 5-level categorical variable. The following continuous covariates were included: birthweight, maternal age at birth, gestational age when pregnancy was discovered (weeks), child age, and maternal education (years). Total intracranial volume was further included as a covariate only in models with gray and white matter volumes as outcomes. Polygenic scores (PGS) for schizophrenia, educational attainment, birthweight, and cannabis use as well as ancestrally-informative principal components (n=10) were included as covariates in post-hoc analyses within the genomically-confirmed European ancestry subsample (Statistical Analyses; Supplement).

Non-prevalent substance use among children (n=80) or by women while they were pregnant (n=185) as well as extreme premature birth (n=148), and non-biological mother parent/caregiver report (n=1,427) were not included as covariates; we conducted post hoc analyses excluding individuals on these variables (Supplement).

Statistical Analyses

Continuous predictor and outcome variables were winsorized to minimize the influence of extreme values (i.e., any values ±3 SDs were set at the ±3 SD point). We used linear mixed-effects models with random intercept parameters to account for non-independence of site and family membership for all non-imaging analyses and scanner and family for all imaging analyses, with the lme4 package in Rv3.6.0.35

We examined the association between prenatal cannabis exposure before and after maternal knowledge of pregnancy (each coded 0/1 separately) and outcomes using three analytic approaches. First, we tested whether prenatal marijuana exposure prior to and after maternal knowledge were associated with outcomes of interest in independent nested mixed models with no fixed effect covariates. We adjusted for multiple testing using Benjamini Hochberg false discovery rate correction (fdrBH). Second, for any associations that were significant after multiple testing correction, we examined whether they were robust to the inclusion of potentially confounding covariates; here, we simultaneously entered prenatal marijuana use before and after maternal knowledge of pregnancy alongside the covariates described above (except genomic data). To address concerns of overfitting, we reran all analyses including only covariates that were significantly associated with the outcome (Supplement). We conducted post hoc analyses to examine subcomponents of significant associations (i.e., CBCL INT and EXT subscales, cognition subcomponents; Supplement). Third and finally, to account for the possible confounding effects of genomic liability to offspring outcomes not accounted for by familial history, we examined whether associations remained significant when accounting for polygenic scores (PGS) derived using summary statistics from genome-wide association studies (GWASs) of related outcomes (Supplement).36 Here, we evaluated whether any associations robust to covariate inclusion were present in the subsample of individuals with genomically-confirmed European ancestry (n=4,644) to ensure that any differences could not be attributable to power reductions, before examining whether these associations were robust to the inclusion of GWAS-weighted PGS (i.e., schizophrenia,37 educational attainment,38 cannabis use,39 polygenic scores for PLEs; cannabis use for social problems; birth weight40 and cannabis use for birth weight; Supplement).

RESULTS

Among 11,489 children (mean [SD]: age, 9.9 [0.6] years; 5,488 [47.78%] girls), 655 (5.85%) were prenatally exposed to marijuana (Table 1). Of these, 413 were exposed only before maternal knowledge of pregnancy while 235 were exposed both before and after maternal knowledge, and 7 only after maternal knowledge. Mothers learned of their pregnancy at 6.91 ± 6.75 weeks. Rates of tobacco and alcohol use during pregnancy, prior to and following maternal knowledge of pregnancy, were higher than cannabis use (Table 1) and modestly correlated with prenatal marijuana exposure (rss 0.11-0.34; Supplemental eTable 1).

Prenatal Cannabis Exposure After Maternal Knowledge of Pregnancy

Prenatal marijuana exposure after maternal knowledge of pregnancy was significantly associated with higher PLEs, BMI and internalizing, externalizing, attention, thought, social, and sleep problems, as well as lower cognition, birth weight, and intracranial and gray and white matter volumes (all |Bs|>0.27, all psfdr<0.002; Table 2), but not gestational age at birth (B=0.14, pfdr=0.271). PLEs, birth weight, and cognition, as well as internalizing, externalizing, attention, thought, and social problems, remained significantly associated even after accounting for potentially confounding covariates (all |Bs|>0.52, all ps<0.046), but sleep problems, BMI, and total intracranial, gray matter, and white matter volumes were not (all |Bs|<0.87, ps>0.27; Figure 1; Table 3; Supplemental eTables 2-8). Post hoc analyses showed globally similar associations across subfacets of EXT, but not INT or cognition (Supplemental eTable 9).

View this table:
Table 2.

Mixed Effects Regression Results for Prenatal Cannabis Exposure Among 10,404-11,489 Children Without Inclusion of Potentially Confounding Covariates.

View this table:
Table 3.

Associations Between Prenatal Cannabis Exposure When Including Potentially Confounding Covariates.

Figure 1.
Figure 1. Prenatal Cannabis Exposure Post Maternal Knowledge of Pregnancy is Associated with Increased Psychopathology Risk (A-F), Reduced Cognition (G), and Reduced Birth Weight (H).

Raw data values are plotted. As scales differ y axes are not directly comparable across panels. CBCL = Child Behavior Checklist. Statistics are presented in Tables 2-3 and Supplemental eTables 2-3. Log--transforming data reduces differences in variability across groups and results in similar conclusions (Supplemental eTable 5).

Stepwise analyses of confounding covariates revealed that reductions in significance could not generally be attributed to a small collection of variables (Supplement). Post Hoc Analyses excluding: children who engaged in non-prevalent substance use, were exposed to other illicit substances prenatally, were born at extreme levels of prematurity, or whose biological mothers were not the parent/caregiver respondent revealed similar associations and consistent conclusions (Supplemental eTable 10-13). Finally, in the subsample of children with genomically-confirmed European ancestry (N=4,644; 3.94% reporting any prenatal exposure), PLEs, social problems, and birth weight remained significantly associated with prenatal exposure to cannabis after maternal knowledge of pregnancy even after accounting for covariates (all |Bs|>0.97, all ps<0.016; Supplemental eTable 14) and when further accounting for child PGS for schizophrenia, educational attainment, birth weight, and/or cannabis use (|Bs|>0.95, all ps<0.018; Supplemental eTables 15-18).

Prenatal Cannabis Exposure Prior to Maternal Knowledge of Pregnancy

Prenatal marijuana exposure prior to maternal knowledge of pregnancy was significantly associated with all outcomes (all |Bs|>0.15, all psfdr<7.0*10−3) except gestational age at birth (B=0.076, pfdr=0.334; Table 2). No associations remained significant after accounting for potentially confounding covariates, but a nominal trend for increased (directionally opposite to results without covariates) cognition emerged (Table 3; Supplemental eTables 2-8). Stepwise analysis of confounding covariates revealed that no small group of covariates was responsible for attenuating these associations (but see Attention and Thought problems; Supplemental eResults).

DISCUSSION

Prenatal cannabis exposure following maternal knowledge of pregnancy is associated with elevated psychopathology risk and reduced cognition during middle childhood as well as reduced birth weight (Tables 2-3). That these associations were robust to the inclusion of potentially confounding variables increases the plausibility that prenatal cannabis exposure may independently contribute to the development of behavioral problems in children. In contrast to increasingly permissive attitudes surrounding marijuana use among pregnant mothers,41 and recommendations by dispensaries to use marijuana to combat pregnancy-related nausea,42 these findings align with recent recommendations by the Surgeon General14 and raise concern surrounding the potential impact of in utero exposure to marijuana on mental health and cognitive outcomes in children.

All studied outcomes, except gestational age at birth, were associated with prenatal exposure before and after maternal knowledge of pregnancy (Table 2); however, only associations between prenatal exposure post-maternal knowledge of pregnancy and child psychopathology, cognition, and birth weight were robust to covariate inclusion (Table 3). There are several potential non-mutually exclusive explanations for these findings. First, endocannabinoid system ontogeny and signaling may play a role. Endocannabinoid type 1 receptors (CB1Rs), which non-human animal data suggest are critical for THC’s impact on the developing brain,43 are not known to be expressed before the equivalent of 5 to 6 weeks gestation in humans.9 As such, independent effects of cannabis on behavioral outcomes in children may only arise when sufficient CB1Rs are present in the fetus, which may not occur until after many women learn they are pregnant (Table 3).c Second, use despite knowledge of pregnancy might represent a more severe form of cannabis use, indicative of higher and more frequent prenatal and potential post-natal exposure (e.g., during breastfeeding) consistent with a dose-response relationship that may reflect variability in liability and/or potential causal influence.45 Third, sustained use during pregnancy may reflect a genetic predisposition to the observed negative outcomes, and the resulting associations may simply reflect pleiotropy.46,47 However, controlling for maternal behavior and genetic susceptibility did not eliminate associations (Supplemental eTables 2-3, 15). Fourth, associations may be attributable to an unmeasured common variable (e.g., paternal germline exposure to cannabis)48 or an alternate derivation of an included confounder.d

Self-administration of cannabis, especially when heavy and early, has been strongly associated with increased psychopathology, particularly psychosis.49 In contrast to acute THC psychotomimetic effects,50 mounting evidence supports common genetic liability as a major contributor to this relationship,39,47,51-53 though evidence also supports potential causal effects of psychosis liability on cannabis use,39,47 and vice versa.54,55 Consistent with prior work,21 we find that child psychosis liability (i.e., PLEs and thought problems) is increased among children prenatally exposed to cannabis. Critically building upon this literature, this relationship was only robust to potential confounds when exposure occurred following maternal knowledge of pregnancy. That the relationship with PLEs remained after accounting for family history of psychosis as well as child polygenic risk for schizophrenia, educational attainment, and cannabis use, raises the intriguing possibility that associations between prenatal exposure and psychosis risk may not be entirely attributable to common SNP genomic liability, at least as indexed by polygenic scores derived from the largest current GWASs that approximate the child outcomes under study (but see also Limitations below). Indeed, putative mechanisms underlying the elevated likelihood of psychosis in children prenatally exposed to cannabis may be distinct from those associated with self-administered cannabis use. For instance, while the endocannabinoid system primarily functions as an on-demand retrograde neuromodulatory system through CB1R signaling throughout life, CB1Rs during the prenatal period are ubiquitously expressed in neural progenitors and contribute to neural migration, axonal elongation, and synaptic formation.9 Although such proposed mechanisms would be consistent with neurodevelopmental theories of psychosis,56 the associations we observed with gross brain morphology metrics were not robust to covariate inclusion. It remains possible that neurodevelopmental differences (e.g., synaptic formation) may not be detectable using MRI, may be regionally specific, or may not emerge until later developmental stages.

In addition to replicating the well validated association with reduced birth weight,13 children prenatally exposed to cannabis following maternal knowledge of pregnancy had elevated internalizing, externalizing, attention, and social problems, as well as reduced cognition. As has been shown for the increased likelihood of tobacco smoking during pregnancy in women with ADHD and the confounding of consequent associations with offspring ADHD,57-59 women with externalizing features (which include cognitive differences) might be more likely to continue using cannabis during their pregnancy. Genetically informed designs (e.g., sibling crossover design where non-twin siblings are discordant for prenatal exposure)60,61 provide one mechanism for identifying such familial sources of confounding.62,63 Notably, prenatal exposure to alcohol and tobacco were also related to offspring psychopathology and cognition, but these associations were predominantly with exposure prior to, as opposed to following, maternal knowledge of pregnancy and observed inconsistently relative to associations with cannabis exposure (Supplemental eTables 2-3). The lack of association with alcohol or tobacco use subsequent to knowledge of pregnancy may indicate the more pronounced public awareness of fetal risks and obstetric oversight of the use of these substances that leads to greater reductions in use post-knowledge of pregnancy, relative to cannabis.8,64 Alternatively, prenatal cannabis exposure may serve as a proxy for exposure to a permissive home environment that promotes externalizing behaviors and related cognitive disengagement.65 In addition, factors broadly correlated with prenatal substance use, such as restricted access to health care, birth-related complications and postpartum maternal behaviors, may plausibly contribute to these associations.66

Some limitations are noteworthy. First, parent/caregivers may have underreported marijuana use during pregnancy; however, our estimates are consistent with other national datasets, including toxicology based prevalence estimates.67 Second, although the ABCD study represents the largest integrative study of child health and substance use and is among the largest studies of prenatal exposure and child outcomes, there were a relatively small number of participants who were exposed to cannabis prenatally which reduces power. Third, marijuana concentration differs significantly between fetuses whose mothers use cannabis once per month compared to once per day.15 There are limited or no data on potency, frequency, timing and quantity of cannabis exposure during pregnancy in this dataset; further, the limited number of prenatally exposed individuals limits the utility of more refined analyses of cannabis use variability in this dataset.68 Fourth, while we were able to account for many known familial, pregnancy, and child related confounding variables, the role of unmeasured confounders cannot be discounted. Relatedly, while we account for underling genetic vulnerability using both familial history as well as polygenic scores, it is possible that the current GWASs from which PGS weighting was determined are underpowered and/or not generalizable across development and as such do not adequately represent genomic risk for the specific child outcomes under study, consistent with the lack of association between schizophrenia PGS and PLEs and thought problems (Supplemental eTable 16-17).

Conclusions

Despite increasingly permissive social attitudes and the marked relaxation of legal restrictions on cannabis use,1 prenatal cannabis exposure, and the correlated risks that it indexes, may place offspring at increased risk for psychopathology and reduced cognition in middle childhood. In the context of increasing marijuana use among pregnant women,2,6 it is clear that more studies on the relationship between prenatal cannabis exposure and offspring developmental outcomes are needed to examine potential causal effects, moderating or protective factors, and biological mechanisms at play.69,70 Similar to the highly effective messaging surrounding the adverse consequences of alcohol and tobacco exposure during pregnancy, education regarding the potential harms associated with prenatal marijuana use is necessary. Currently, cannabis use during pregnancy should be discouraged by care providers and dispensaries.11,14

Data Availability

Data came from the ABCD study 2.0.1 data release. More information about this study and how to access these data are available here: https://abcdstudy.org/

ACKNLOWEDGEMENTS

Data for this study were provided by the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) study which was funded by awards U01DA041022, U01DA041025, U01DA041028, U01DA041048, U01DA041089, U01DA041093, U01DA041106, U01DA041117, U01DA041120, U01DA041134, U01DA041148, U01DA041156, U01DA041174, U24DA041123, and U24DA041147 from the NIH and additional federal partners (https://abcdstudy.org/federal-partners.html). Authors received funding support from NIH: Dr. Hatoum (T32-DA007261), Dr. Johnson (F32 AA027435), Dr. Karcher (MH014677), Dr. Carter (R01-DA046224), Dr. Rogers (R01-DA046224), Dr. Agrawal (5K02DA32573; R01-DA046224), Dr. Barch (R01-MH113883; R01-MH066031; U01-MH109589; U01-A005020803; R01-MH090786), Dr. Bogdan (R01-AG045231, R01-HD083614, R01-AG052564, R21-AA027827, R01-DA046224). RB, SEP, JF, and ALM developed the research questions. SEP, JDF, AH, EJ, RB conducted analyses. SEP and RB drafted the manuscript. AH, IH, JDF, EJ, ALM, EB, YQ, NRK, EBC, CER, AA, DMB provided critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content. SEP, AH, JDF, EJ, and RB had full access to all data and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and accuracy of analyses. Conflict of interest disclosures: No disclosures were reported. Data on birth weight for polygenic risk scores has been contributed by the EGG Consortium using the UK Biobank Resource and has been downloaded from www.egg-consortium.org. We would like to acknowledge all participating groups of the International Cannabis Consortium, and in particular the members of the working group including S. Stringer, C. Minica, K. Verweij, H. Mbarek, E. Derks, N. Gillespie, and J. Vink.

Footnotes

  • ↵a All analyses were rerun excluding parent/caregiver respondents who were not the mother; all results and conclusions remain the same; Supplement).

  • ↵b Cornell University was an original collection site that collected data from 34 participants, before being moved to Yale University. ABCD documentation reports 21 data collection sites and does not list Cornell; our analyses nested data based on 22 data collection sites, including the original Cornell site.

  • ↵c It is possible that exposure before this time might not directly impact fetal brain development, though it remains possible for indirect effects to arise indirectly through endocannabinoid receptor expression in the placenta.44

  • ↵d Notably, accounting for scores from a 4-item assessment of psychotic-like experiences in mothers (Supplement) as opposed to familial history of psychosis, which has a low endorsement rate, does not alter the significance of the association between prenatal marijuana exposure and PLEs in offspring (Supplemental eTable 18)

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    Hasin DS. US Epidemiology of Cannabis Use and Associated Problems. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2018;43(1):195–212.
    OpenUrl
  2. 2.↵
    Volkow ND, Han B, Compton WM, McCance-Katz EF. Self-reported Medical and Nonmedical Cannabis Use Among Pregnant Women in the United States. JAMA. 2019;322(2):167–169.
    OpenUrl
  3. 3.↵
    Yao JL, He QZ, Liu M, et al. Effects of Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) on human amniotic epithelial cell proliferation and migration. Toxicology. 2018;394:19–26.
    OpenUrl
  4. 4.
    Basavarajappa BS, Nixon RA, Arancio O. Endocannabinoid system: emerging role from neurodevelopment to neurodegeneration. Mini Rev Med Chem. 2009;9(4):448–462.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    Fride E, Gobshtis N, Dahan H, Weller A, Giuffrida A, Ben-Shabat S. The endocannabinoid system during development: emphasis on perinatal events and delayed effects. Vitam Horm. 2009;81:139–158.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    Young-Wolff KC, Sarovar V, Tucker LY, et al. Self-reported Daily, Weekly, and Monthly Cannabis Use Among Women Before and During Pregnancy. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(7):e196471.
    OpenUrl
  7. 7.
    Brown QL, Sarvet AL, Shmulewitz D, Martins SS, Wall MM, Hasin DS. Trends in Marijuana Use Among Pregnant and Nonpregnant Reproductive-Aged Women, 2002-2014. JAMA. 2017;317(2):207–209.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    Agrawal A, Rogers CE, Lessov-Schlaggar CN, Carter EB, Lenze SN, Grucza RA. Alcohol, Cigarette, and Cannabis Use Between 2002 and 2016 in Pregnant Women From a Nationally Representative Sample. JAMA Pediatr. 2019;173(1):95–96.
    OpenUrl
  9. 9.↵
    Wu CS, Jew CP, Lu HC. Lasting impacts of prenatal cannabis exposure and the role of endogenous cannabinoids in the developing brain. Future Neurol. 2011;6(4):459–480.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.
    Scheyer AF, Melis M, Trezza V, Manzoni OJJ. Consequences of Perinatal Cannabis Exposure. Trends Neurosci. 2019.
  11. 11.↵
    Volkow ND, Compton WM, Wargo EM. The Risks of Marijuana Use During Pregnancy. JAMA. 2017;317(2):129–130.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  12. 12.
    Jansson LM, Jordan CJ, Velez ML. Perinatal Marijuana Use and the Developing Child. JAMA. 2018;320(6):545–546.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    National Academies of Sciences E, Medicine. The Health Effects of Cannabis and Cannabinoids: The Current State of Evidence and Recommendations for Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2017.
  14. 14.↵
    General OotS. U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory: Marijuana Use and the Developing Brain. 2019; https://www.hhs.gov/surgeongeneral/reports-and-publications/addiction-and-substance-misuse/advisory-on-marijuana-use-and-developing-brain/index.html#. Accessed 10/16/2019, 2019.
  15. 15.↵
    Ryan SA, Ammerman SD, O’Connor ME, Committee On Substance USE, Prevention, Section On B. Marijuana Use During Pregnancy and Breastfeeding: Implications for Neonatal and Childhood Outcomes. Pediatrics. 2018;142(3).
  16. 16.↵
    Smith AM, Mioduszewski O, Hatchard T, Byron-Alhassan A, Fall C, Fried PA. Prenatal marijuana exposure impacts executive functioning into young adulthood: An fMRI study. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 2016;58:53–59.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    Leech SL, Richardson GA, Goldschmidt L, Day NL. Prenatal substance exposure: effects on attention and impulsivity of 6-year-olds. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 1999;21(2):109–118.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  18. 18.↵
    Corsi DJ, Walsh L, Weiss D, et al. Association Between Self-reported Prenatal Cannabis Use and Maternal, Perinatal, and Neonatal Outcomes. JAMA. 2019;322(2):145–152.
    OpenUrl
  19. 19.↵
    Gray KA, Day NL, Leech S, Richardson GA. Prenatal marijuana exposure: effect on child depressive symptoms at ten years of age. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 2005;27(3):439–448.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  20. 20.
    Goldschmidt L, Day NL, Richardson GA. Effects of prenatal marijuana exposure on child behavior problems at age 10. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 2000;22(3):325–336.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  21. 21.↵
    Day NL, Goldschmidt L, Day R, Larkby C, Richardson GA. Prenatal marijuana exposure, age of marijuana initiation, and the development of psychotic symptoms in young adults. Psychol Med. 2015;45(8):1779–1787.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    Dahl RE, Scher MS, Williamson DE, Robles N, Day N. A longitudinal study of prenatal marijuana use. Effects on sleep and arousal at age 3 years. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1995;149(2):145–150.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  23. 23.
    Zammit S, Thomas K, Thompson A, et al. Maternal tobacco, cannabis and alcohol use during pregnancy and risk of adolescent psychotic symptoms in offspring. Br J Psychiatry. 2009;195(4):294–300.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. 24.
    Ruisch IH, Dietrich A, Glennon JC, Buitelaar JK, Hoekstra PJ. Maternal substance use during pregnancy and offspring conduct problems: A meta-analysis. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2018;84:325–336.
    OpenUrl
  25. 25.
    Huizink AC. Prenatal cannabis exposure and infant outcomes: overview of studies. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2014;52:45–52.
    OpenUrl
  26. 26.↵
    Fine JD, Moreau AL, Karcher NR, et al. Association of Prenatal Cannabis Exposure With Psychosis Proneness Among Children in the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study. JAMA Psychiatry. 2019;76(7):762–764.
    OpenUrl
  27. 27.↵
    Buckley NE, Hansson S, Harta G, Mezey E. Expression of the CB1 and CB2 receptor messenger RNAs during embryonic development in the rat. Neuroscience. 1998;82(4):1131–1149.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  28. 28.↵
    Zurolo E, Iyer AM, Spliet WG, et al. CB1 and CB2 cannabinoid receptor expression during development and in epileptogenic developmental pathologies. Neuroscience. 2010;170(1):28–41.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  29. 29.↵
    Volkow ND, Koob GF, Croyle RT, et al. The conception of the ABCD study: From substance use to a broad NIH collaboration. Dev Cogn Neurosci. 2018;32:4–7.
    OpenUrl
  30. 30.↵
    Karcher NR, Barch DM, Avenevoli S, et al. Assessment of the Prodromal Questionnaire-Brief Child Version for Measurement of Self-reported Psychoticlike Experiences in Childhood. JAMA Psychiatry. 2018;75(8):853–861.
    OpenUrl
  31. 31.↵
    Loewy RL, Pearson R, Vinogradov S, Bearden CE, Cannon TD. Psychosis risk screening with the Prodromal Questionnaire--brief version (PQ-B). Schizophr Res. 2011;129(1):42–46.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    Achenbach TM. Manual for the ASEBA school-age forms & profiles : an integrated system of multi-informant assessment Burlington, VT, USA.: ASEBA; 2001.
  33. 33.↵
    Bruni O, Ottaviano S, Guidetti V, et al. The Sleep Disturbance Scale for Children (SDSC). Construction and validation of an instrument to evaluate sleep disturbances in childhood and adolescence. J Sleep Res. 1996;5(4):251–261.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  34. 34.↵
    Akshoomoff N, Beaumont JL, Bauer PJ, et al. VIII. NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery (CB): composite scores of crystallized, fluid, and overall cognition. Monogr Soc Res Child Dev. 2013;78(4):119–132.
    OpenUrl
  35. 35.↵
    Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S. Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. 2015. 2015;67(1):48.
    OpenUrl
  36. 36.↵
    Bogdan R, Baranger DAA, Agrawal A. Polygenic Risk Scores in Clinical Psychology: Bridging Genomic Risk to Individual Differences. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2018;14:119–157.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    Schizophrenia Working Group of the Psychiatric Genomics C. Biological insights from 108 schizophrenia-associated genetic loci. Nature. 2014;511(7510):421–427.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  38. 38.↵
    Lee JJ, Wedow R, Okbay A, et al. Gene discovery and polygenic prediction from a genome-wide association study of educational attainment in 1.1 million individuals. Nat Genet. 2018;50(8):1112–1121.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. 39.↵
    Pasman JA, Verweij KJH, Gerring Z, et al. GWAS of lifetime cannabis use reveals new risk loci, genetic overlap with psychiatric traits, and a causal influence of schizophrenia. Nat Neurosci. 2018;21(9):1161–1170.
    OpenUrl
  40. 40.↵
    Warrington NM, Beaumont RN, Horikoshi M, et al. Maternal and fetal genetic effects on birth weight and their relevance to cardio-metabolic risk factors. Nat Genet. 2019;51(5):804–814.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. 41.↵
    Carliner H, Brown QL, Sarvet AL, Hasin DS. Cannabis use, attitudes, and legal status in the U.S.: A review. Prev Med. 2017;104:13–23.
    OpenUrl
  42. 42.↵
    Dickson B, Mansfield C, Guiahi M, et al. Recommendations From Cannabis Dispensaries About First-Trimester Cannabis Use. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;131(6):1031–1038.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. 43.↵
    de Salas-Quiroga A, Diaz-Alonso J, Garcia-Rincon D, et al. Prenatal exposure to cannabinoids evokes long-lasting functional alterations by targeting CB1 receptors on developing cortical neurons. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015;112(44):13693–13698.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  44. 44.↵
    Fugedi G, Molnar M, Rigo J, Jr.., Schonleber J, Kovalszky I, Molvarec A. Increased placental expression of cannabinoid receptor 1 in preeclampsia: an observational study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014;14:395.
    OpenUrl
  45. 45.↵
    Baranger DAA, Bogdan R. Editorial: Causal, Predispositional, or Correlate? Group Differences in Cognitive Control-Related Brain Function in Cannabis-Using Youth Raise New Questions. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2019;58(7):665–667.
    OpenUrl
  46. 46.↵
    Baranger DAA, Demers CH, Elsayed NM, et al. Convergent evidence for predispositional effects of brain gray matter volume on alcohol consumption. Biological Psychiatry.
  47. 47.↵
    Demontis D, Rajagopal VM, Thorgeirsson TE, et al. Genome-wide association study implicates CHRNA2 in cannabis use disorder. Nat Neurosci. 2019;22(7):1066–1074.
    OpenUrl
  48. 48.↵
    Murphy SK, Itchon-Ramos N, Visco Z, et al. Cannabinoid exposure and altered DNA methylation in rat and human sperm. Epigenetics. 2018;13(12):1208–1221.
    OpenUrl
  49. 49.↵
    Moore TH, Zammit S, Lingford-Hughes A, et al. Cannabis use and risk of psychotic or affective mental health outcomes: a systematic review. Lancet. 2007;370(9584):319–328.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  50. 50.↵
    Mason O, Morgan CJ, Dhiman SK, et al. Acute cannabis use causes increased psychotomimetic experiences in individuals prone to psychosis. Psychol Med. 2009;39(6):951–956.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  51. 51.↵
    Power RA, Verweij KJ, Zuhair M, et al. Genetic predisposition to schizophrenia associated with increased use of cannabis. Mol Psychiatry. 2014;19(11):1201–1204.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  52. 52.
    Carey CE, Agrawal A, Bucholz KK, et al. Associations between Polygenic Risk for Psychiatric Disorders and Substance Involvement. Front Genet. 2016;7:149.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  53. 53.↵
    Verweij KJ, Abdellaoui A, Nivard MG, et al. Short communication: Genetic association between schizophrenia and cannabis use. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2017;171:117–121.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  54. 54.↵
    Vaucher J, Keating BJ, Lasserre AM, et al. Cannabis use and risk of schizophrenia: a Mendelian randomization study. Mol Psychiatry. 2018;23(5):1287–1292.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  55. 55.↵
    Gage SH, Jones HJ, Burgess S, et al. Assessing causality in associations between cannabis use and schizophrenia risk: a two-sample Mendelian randomization study. Psychol Med. 2017;47(5):971–980.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  56. 56.↵
    Owen MJ, O’Donovan MC, Thapar A, Craddock N. Neurodevelopmental hypothesis of schizophrenia. Br J Psychiatry. 2011;198(3):173–175.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  57. 57.↵
    D’Onofrio BM, Van Hulle CA, Waldman ID, et al. Smoking during pregnancy and offspring externalizing problems: an exploration of genetic and environmental confounds. Dev Psychopathol. 2008;20(1):139–164.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  58. 58.
    Skoglund C, Chen Q, D’Onofrio BM, Lichtenstein P, Larsson H. Familial confounding of the association between maternal smoking during pregnancy and ADHD in offspring. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2014;55(1):61–68.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  59. 59.↵
    Palmer RH, Bidwell LC, Heath AC, Brick LA, Madden PA, Knopik VS. Effects of Maternal Smoking during Pregnancy on Offspring Externalizing Problems: Contextual Effects in a Sample of Female Twins. Behav Genet. 2016;46(3):403–415.
    OpenUrl
  60. 60.↵
    Knopik VS, Heath AC, Marceau K, et al. Missouri Mothers and Their Children: A Family Study of the Effects of Genetics and the Prenatal Environment. Twin Res Hum Genet. 2015;18(5):485–496.
    OpenUrl
  61. 61.↵
    Quinn PD, Rickert ME, Weibull CE, et al. Association Between Maternal Smoking During Pregnancy and Severe Mental Illness in Offspring. JAMA Psychiatry. 2017;74(6):589–596.
    OpenUrl
  62. 62.↵
    Knopik VS, Neiderhiser JM, de Geus E, Boomsma D. The Importance of the Prenatal Environment in Behavioral Genetics: Introduction to Special Issue. Behav Genet. 2016;46(3):281–285.
    OpenUrl
  63. 63.↵
    D’Onofrio BM, Class QA, Rickert ME, et al. Translational Epidemiologic Approaches to Understanding the Consequences of Early-Life Exposures. Behav Genet. 2016;46(3):315–328.
    OpenUrl
  64. 64.↵
    Seiler NK. Alcohol and Pregnancy: CDC’s Health Advice and the Legal Rights of Pregnant Women. Public Health Rep. 2016;131(4):623–627.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  65. 65.↵
    Hopson MB, Margolis A, Rauh V, Herbstman J. Impact of the home environment on the relationship between prenatal exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and child behavior. Int J Child Health Hum Dev. 2016;9(4):453–464.
    OpenUrl
  66. 66.↵
    Bishai R, Koren G. Maternal and obstetric effects of prenatal drug exposure. Clin Perinatol. 1999;26(1):75-86, vii.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  67. 67.↵
    Garg M, Garrison L, Leeman L, et al. Validity of Self-Reported Drug Use Information Among Pregnant Women. Matern Child Health J. 2016;20(1):41-47.
    OpenUrl
  68. 68.↵
    Di Forti M, Quattrone D, Freeman TP, et al. The contribution of cannabis use to variation in the incidence of psychotic disorder across Europe (EU-GEI): a multicentre case-control study. Lancet Psychiatry. 2019;6(5):427–436.
    OpenUrl
  69. 69.↵
    Frau R, Miczan V, Traccis F, et al. Prenatal THC exposure produces a hyperdopaminergic phenotype rescued by pregnenolone. Nat Neurosci. 2019.
  70. 70.↵
    Dong C, Chen J, Harrington A, Vinod KY, Hegde ML, Hegde VL. Cannabinoid exposure during pregnancy and its impact on immune function. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2019;76(4):729–743.
    OpenUrl
Back to top
Posted December 19, 2019.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email
Prenatal cannabis exposure and childhood outcomes: Results from the ABCD study
Sarah E. Paul, Alexander Hatoum, Jeremy D. Fine, Emma C. Johnson, Isabella Hansen, Nicole R. Karcher, Allison L. Moreau, Erin Bondy, Yueyue Qu, Ebony B. Carter, Cynthia E Rogers, Arpana Agrawal, Deanna M. Barch, Ryan Bogdan
medRxiv 2019.12.18.19015164; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2019.12.18.19015164
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area