Effects of methamphetamine use on quantitative EEG characters in an Iranian population

authors:

avatar Ali Reza Shafiee-Kandjani , avatar Sona Sadeghpour ORCID , * , avatar A. li Fakhari , avatar A. li Jahan , avatar Maryam Moghadam-Salimi

Koomesh: Vol.21, issue 4; 656-660
published online: December 01, 2019
article type: Research Article
received: July 01, 2018
accepted: April 01, 2019

how to cite: Shafiee-Kandjani A R, Sadeghpour S, Fakhari A L, Jahan A L, Moghadam-Salimi M. Effects of methamphetamine use on quantitative EEG characters in an Iranian population. koomesh. 2019;21(4):e153128. 

Abstract

Introduction: Methamphetamine consumption is associated with cognitive and neuropsychological damage. Determining the effect of this substance on the activities and characteristics of the human brain can lead to the prevention and treatment of complications caused by abuse. There are diverse chemical formulas in Iran with unknown properties. Moreover, few studies have focused on electrophysiological changes in this field which accounts for a robust study in Iran. Materials and Methods: In this descriptive-analytic study, 18 recently abstinent methamphetamine dependent individuals with the matched non-user counterparts were recruited. Brain signals were recorded through EEG with open eyes. Absolute and relative power values were calculated based on frontal, parietal, temporal and occipital regions for each group. Results: Remarkably, it was revealed that absolute power values were lower in Cz, Pz and Fz electrodes in terms of four frequency bands in delta and theta waves (p = 0.01). Interestingly, relative power values were lower among methamphetamine users in delta and theta frequency bands compared to the control group. Conclusion: methamphetamine users have more decreased delta, theta and beta frequency bands especially at parietal regions. Chemical or subtle structural changes may be responsible for this result (p = 0.048).

References

  • 1.

    Mehrpour O. Methamphetamin abuse a new concern in Iran. Daru 2012; 20: 73.

  • 2.

    Shariatirad S, Maarefvand M, Ekhtiari H. Methamphetamine use and methadone maintenance treatment: an emerging problem in the drug addiction treatment network in Iran. Int J Drug Policy 2013; 24: e115-e116.

  • 3.

    Khajeamiri AR, Faizi M, Sohani F, Baheri T, Kobarfard F. Determination of impurities in illicit methamphetamine samples seized in Iran. Forensic Sci Int 2012; 217: 204-206.

  • 4.

    Saberizafarghandi MB, khanipour H. prediction the severity of addiction based on the role of the demographic factors, historical childhood abuse, temprerament dimension and emotional Schemas 2019; 21: 109-115.

  • 5.

    Scott JC, Woods SP, Matt GE, Meyer RA, Heaton RK, Atkinson JH, et al. Neurocognitive effects of methamphetamine: a critical review and meta-analysis. Neuropsychol Rev 2007; 17: 275-297.

  • 6.

    Hart CL, Marvin CB, Silver R, Smith EE. Is cognitive functioning impaired in methamphetamine users? A critical review. Neuropsychopharmacology 2012; 37: 586.

  • 7.

    Nordahl TE, Salo R, Leamon M. Neuropsychological effects of chronic methamphetamine use on neurotransmitters and cognition: a review. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci 2003; 15: 317-325.

  • 8.

    Barr AM, Panenka WJ, MacEwan GW, Thornton AE, Lang DJ, Honer WG, Lecomte T. The need for speed: an update on methamphetamine addiction. J Psychiatry Neurosci 2006; 31: 301-313.

  • 9.

    Ernst T, Chang L, LeonidoYee M, Speck O. Evidence for long-term neurotoxicity associated with methamphetamine abuse A 1H MRS study. Neurology 2000; 54: 1344-1349.

  • 10.

    Sekine Y, Minabe Y, Ouchi Y, Takei N, Iyo M, Nakamura K, et al. Association of dopamine transporter loss in the orbitofrontal and dorsolateral prefrontal cortices with methamphetamine-related psychiatric symptoms. Am J Psychiatry 2003; 160: 1699-1701.

  • 11.

    Chung A, Lyoo IK, Kim SJ, Hwang J, Bae SC, Sung YH, et al. Decreased frontal white-matter integrity in abstinent methamphetamine abusers. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol 2007; 10: 765-775.

  • 12.

    Lal SK, Craig A. Driver fatigue: electroencephalography and psychological assessment. Psychophysiology 2002; 39: 313-321.

  • 13.

    Paulus MP, Hozack N, Frank L, Brown GG, Schuckit MA. Decision making by methamphetamine-dependent subjects is associated with error-rate-independent decrease in prefrontal and parietal activation. Biol Psychiatry 2003; 53: 65-74.

  • 14.

    Paulus MP, Hozack NE, Zauscher BE, Frank L, Brown GG, Braff DL, et al. Behavioral and functional neuroimaging evidence for prefrontal dysfunction in methamphetamine-dependent subjects. Neuropsychopharmacology 2002; 26: 53.

  • 15.

    Kalechstein AD, De La Garza R, Newton TF, Green MF, Cook IA, Leuchter AF. Quantitative EEG abnormalities are associated with memory impairment in recently abstinent methamphetamine-dependent individuals. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci 2009; 21: 254-258.

  • 16.

    Newton TF, Cook IA, Kalechstein AD, Duran S, Monroy F, Ling W, et al. Quantitative EEG abnormalities in recently abstinent methamphetamine dependent individuals. Clin Neurophysiol 2003; 114: 410-415.

  • 17.

    Newton TF, Kalechstein AD, Hardy DJ, Cook IA, Nestor L, Ling W, et al. Association between quantitative EEG and neurocognition in methamphetamine-dependent volunteers. Clin Neurophysiol 2004; 115: 194-198.

  • 18.

    Graham DL, Herring NR, Schaefer TL, Holland KD, Vorhees CV, Williams MT. Electroencephalographic and convulsive effects of binge doses of (+)-methamphetamine, 5-methoxydiisopropyltryptamine, and ()-3, 4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine in rats. Open Neuropsychopharmacol J 2012; 5: 1-8.

  • 19.

    Hall MG, Alhassoon OM, Stern MJ, Wollman SC, Kimmel CL, Perez-Figueroa A, et al. Gray matter abnormalities in cocaine versus methamphetamine-dependent patients: a neuroimaging meta-analysis. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse 2015; 41: 290-299.

  • 20.

    Brust JC. Seizures and substance abuse: treatment considerations. Neurology 2006; 67: S45-S48.

  • 21.

    Schck S, Bentu-Ferrer D, Kleinermans D, Reymann JM, Polard E, Gandon JM, et al. Psychomotor and cognitive effects of piribedil, a dopamine agonist, in young healthy volunteers. Fundam Clin Pharmacol 2002; 16: 57-65.

  • 22.

    Kikuchi M, Wada Y, Nanbu Y, Nakajima A, Tachibana H, Takeda T, et al. EEG changes following scopolamine administration in healthy subjects. Neuropsychobiology 1999; 39: 219-226.

  • 23.

    Jann K, Kottlow M, Dierks T, Boesch C, Koenig T. Topographic electrophysiological signatures of fMRI resting state networks. PloS One 2010; 5: e12945.

  • 24.

    Spanagel R, Weiss F. The dopamine hypothesis of reward: past and current status. Trends Neurosci 1999; 22: 521-527.

  • 25.

    Koob GF. Drugs of abuse: anatomy, pharmacology and function of reward pathways. Trends Pharmacol Sci 1992; 13: 177-184.

  • 26.

    Knyazev GG. EEG delta oscillations as a correlate of basic homeostatic and motivational processes. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2012; 36: 677-695.

  • 27.

    Khodakarami Z, Firozabadi M. Self - regulation of brain gamma band activity through nourofeedback and its effects on vsual feature bindings in healthy femal students. 2014; 16: 36-45. (Persian).##.