Recreational ecstasy use is linked to lasting memory impairments

Use of the drug MDMA, commonly known as ecstasy, may lead to lasting difficulties with learning and memory that persist long after a person stops taking it. A new analysis indicates that people who use the drug recreationally perform worse on cognitive tests than those who have never used it. These deficits appear to remain the same even in individuals who have abstained from the drug for months or years. These findings were published in the Journal of Psychopharmacology.

The chemical 3,4-methylenedioxy-N-methamphetamine, or MDMA, is a synthetic substance that alters mood and perception. It works primarily by causing a massive release of serotonin in the brain. Serotonin is a neurotransmitter that plays a major role in regulating sleep, mood, and memory. The drug prevents the brain from reabsorbing this chemical, which creates the feelings of euphoria and empathy that users seek. However, this mechanism also depletes the brain’s supply of serotonin.

Animal studies have provided evidence that MDMA can be neurotoxic. Experiments with rats and primates suggest that repeated exposure to the drug can damage the nerve endings that release serotonin. These changes can last for a long time. In humans, brain imaging studies have shown alterations in the serotonin systems of heavy users. These changes often appear in the neocortex and the limbic system, which are brain areas essential for thinking and memory.

Researchers want to understand if these changes are permanent. Some imaging studies suggest that the brain might recover after a period of abstinence. However, it is not clear if the return of serotonin markers corresponds to a recovery in mental sharpness. This question is relevant for public health as well as clinical medicine. There is a renewed interest in using MDMA therapeutically to treat conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder. Understanding the long-term safety profile of the substance is necessary for both patients and recreational users.

To address this question, a team of researchers led by Hillary Ung and Mark Daglish conducted a systematic review. They are affiliated with Metro North Mental Health and the University of Queensland in Australia. The team searched through medical databases for every available study on the topic. They looked for research that assessed cognitive function in recreational MDMA users.

The researchers applied strict criteria to select the studies. They only included research that focused on individuals who had abstained from MDMA for at least six months. This duration was chosen to ensure that the participants were not experiencing withdrawal or the immediate aftereffects of the drug. The researchers also required that the studies use standardized neurocognitive testing tools.

Fourteen articles met the requirements for the review. From these, the researchers extracted data to perform a meta-analysis. This statistical technique combines the results of multiple small studies to find patterns that might be invisible in a single experiment. The analysis focused primarily on the domain of learning and memory, as this was the most commonly tested area across the studies.

The analysis revealed a clear distinction between those who used MDMA and those who did not. People with a history of MDMA use performed significantly worse on memory tests compared to people who were drug-naïve. The specific deficits were most notable in verbal memory. This involves the ability to remember and recall words or verbal information.

The researchers then compared current users against the abstinent users. Current users were defined as those who had used the drug recently, while the abstinent group had stopped for at least six months. The analysis found no statistical difference between these two groups. The cognitive performance of those who had quit was essentially the same as those who were still using the drug.

This lack of improvement was unexpected. One might predict that the brain would heal over time. However, the data did not show a correlation between the length of abstinence and better memory scores. Even in studies where participants had abstained for two years or more, the memory deficits remained. This suggests that the impact of MDMA on memory may be long-lasting or potentially permanent.

The review also examined other cognitive domains. These included executive function, which covers skills like planning and paying attention. The results for these areas were less consistent. Some data pointed to deficits in executive function, but the evidence was not strong enough to draw a firm conclusion. There was also limited evidence regarding impairments in language or motor skills.

The authors of the study advise caution when interpreting these results. They noted that the quality of the available evidence is generally low. Most of the studies included in the review were cross-sectional. This means they looked at a snapshot of people at one point in time rather than following them over many years. It is possible that people who choose to use MDMA have pre-existing differences in memory or impulsivity compared to those who do not.

Another major complication is the use of other drugs. People who use ecstasy recreationally rarely use only that substance. They often consume alcohol, cannabis, or cocaine as well. While the researchers tried to account for this, it is difficult to isolate the specific effects of MDMA from the effects of these other substances. Alcohol and cannabis are known to affect memory. It is possible that the deficits observed are the result of cumulative polydrug use rather than MDMA alone.

The purity of the drug is another variable. The studies relied on participants reporting how many pills they had taken in their lifetime. However, the amount of active MDMA in a street pill varies wildly. Some pills contain very high doses, while others contain none at all. This makes it impossible to calculate a precise dose-response relationship.

The researchers also pointed out that the drug market has changed. Many of the studies in the review were conducted in the early 2000s. Since then, the average strength of ecstasy tablets has increased significantly. Users today might be exposing themselves to higher doses than the participants in these older studies. This could mean that the cognitive risks are higher for modern users.

The findings have implications for the potential reversibility of brain changes. While some brain imaging studies show that serotonin transporters may regenerate over time, this study suggests that functional recovery does not necessarily follow. It is possible that the brain structures recover, but the functional connections remain altered. Alternatively, six months might simply be too short a time for full cognitive recovery to occur.

The study provides a sobering perspective on recreational drug use. The deficits in learning and memory were moderate to large in size. For a young person in an educational or professional setting, such deficits could have a tangible impact on their daily life. The inability to retain new information efficiently could hinder academic or career progress.

The authors call for better research designs in the future. They recommend longitudinal studies that assess people before they start using drugs and follow them over time. They also suggest using hair analysis to verify exactly what substances participants have taken. This would provide a more objective measure of drug exposure than self-reporting.

Until better data is available, the current evidence suggests a risk of lasting harm. Stopping the use of MDMA stops the immediate risks of toxicity. However, it may not immediately reverse the cognitive toll taken by previous use. The brain may require a very long time to heal, or the changes may be irreversible.

The study, “Long-term neurocognitive side effects of MDMA in recreational ecstasy users following sustained abstinence: A systematic review and meta-analysis,” was authored by Hillary Ung, Gemma McKeon, Zorica Jokovic, Stephen Parker, Mark Vickers, Eva Malacova, Lars Eriksson, and Mark Daglish.