Prescription medicine use by pedestrians and the risk of injurious road traffic crashes: A case-crossover study.

BACKGROUND: While some medicinal drugs have been found to affect driving ability, no study has investigated whether a relationship exists between these medicines and crashes involving pedestrians. The aim of this study was to explore the association between the use of medicinal drugs and the risk of being involved in a road traffic crash as a pedestrian. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Data from 3 French nationwide databases were matched. We used the case-crossover design to control for time-invariant factors by using each case as its own control. To perform multivariable analysis and limit false-positive results, we implemented a bootstrap version of Lasso. To avoid the effect of unmeasured time-varying factors, we varied the length of the washout period from 30 to 119 days before the crash. The matching procedure led to the inclusion of 16,458 pedestrians involved in an injurious road traffic crash from 1 July 2005 to 31 December 2011. We found 48 medicine classes with a positive association with the risk of crash, with median odds ratios ranging from 1.12 to 2.98. Among these, benzodiazepines and benzodiazepine-related drugs, antihistamines, and anti-inflammatory and antirheumatic drugs were among the 10 medicines most consumed by the 16,458 pedestrians. Study limitations included slight overrepresentation of pedestrians injured in more severe crashes, lack of information about self-medication and the use of over-the-counter drugs, and lack of data on amount of walking. CONCLUSIONS: Therapeutic classes already identified as impacting the ability to drive, such as benzodiazepines and antihistamines, are also associated with an increased risk of pedestrians being involved in a road traffic crash. This study on pedestrians highlights the necessity of improving awareness of the effect of these medicines on this category of road user.

Apixaban versus other anticoagulants in patients with nonvalvular fibrillation: a comparison of all-cause and event-related costs in real-life setting in France.

OBJECTIVES: Compare costs associated with all-cause healthcare resource use (HCRU), stroke/systemic thromboembolism (STE) and major bleedings (MB) between patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) initiating apixaban or other oral anticoagulants (OACs). METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study using the French healthcare claims database, including NVAF patients between 2014/01/01 and 2016/12/31, followed until 2016/12/31. We used 4 sub-cohorts of OAC-naive patients, respectively initiating apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban or VKAs. We matched patients initiating apixaban with patients initiating each other OACs using 1:n propensity score matching. All-cause HCRU and event-related costs by OAC treatment were estimated and compared between matched patients using generalised-linear models with gamma-distribution and two-part models. RESULTS: There were 175,766 patients in the apixaban-VKA, 181,809 in the apixaban-rivaroxaban, and 42,490 in the apixaban-dabigatran matched cohorts. Patients initiating apixaban had significantly lower HCRU costs than patients initiating VKA (€1,105 vs. €1,578, p < 0.0001), dabigatran (€993 vs. €1,140, p < 0.0001) and rivaroxaban (€1,013 vs. €1,088 p < 0.0001). They have had significantly lower costs related to stroke/STE and MB than patients initiating VKA (respectively, €183 vs. €449 and €147 vs. €413; p < 0.0001), rivaroxaban (respectively, €145 vs. €197 and €129 vs. €193; p < 0.0001), and lower costs related to stroke/STE than patients initiating dabigatran (€135 vs. €192, p < 0.02). Costs related to MB were not significantly different in patients initiating apixaban and those initiating dabigatran (€119 vs. €149, p = 0.07). CONCLUSIONS: HCRU and most event-related costs were lower in patients initiating apixaban compared to other OACs. Apixaban may be cost-saving compared to VKAs, and significantly cheaper than other DOACs, although cost differences are limited.

Road safety and distraction, results from a responsibility case-control study among a sample of road users interviewed at the emergency room.

Despite the complexities of the driving task, more and more drivers engage in non-driving secondary tasks that take their hands (manual distraction), their eyes (visual distraction) and/or their mind (cognitive distraction) away from their primary task. Inattention arising from external distractions has received much less consideration beyond the impact of mobile phone use. We aimed to investigate the association between distraction behind the wheel and risk of being responsible for a road traffic crash in a responsibility case-control study. The study population included 1912 drivers injured in a road traffic crash recruited in two rounds of recruitment (from April 2010 to August 2011 and from March 2013 to January 2015) in the adult emergency department of Bordeaux University Hospital (France). Responsibility levels were estimated using a standardized method. Self-reported activities among a pre-established list of potential distractions were combined into four external distraction variables: visual distraction, manual distraction, auditory distraction, and verbal interaction. A significantly increased risk of being responsible for a road traffic crash was associated with the exposure to activities that take drivers' eyes off the road (adjusted odds ratio 2.99, 95% confidence interval 1.42-6.28) and activities that take drivers' hands off the wheel (adjusted odds ratio 2.12, 95% confidence interval 1.20-3.75). No significant associations were found for verbal interaction and listening to the radio and/or singing. This study suggests that beyond the use of mobile phone, particular attention must be paid to activities that involve visual and/or manual distraction.

The distracted mind on the wheel: Overall propensity to mind wandering is associated with road crash responsibility.

The role of distractions on attentional lapses that place road users in higher risk of crash remains poorly understood. We aimed to assess the respective impact of (i) mind wandering trait (propensity to mind wander in the everyday life as measured with a set of 4 questions on the proportion of time spent mind wandering in 4 different situations) and (ii) mind wandering state (disturbing thoughts just before the crash) on road crash risk using a comparison between responsible and non-responsible drivers. 954 drivers injured in a road crash were interviewed at the adult emergency department of the Bordeaux university hospital in France (2013-2015). Responsibility for the crash, mind wandering (trait/state), external distraction, alcohol use, psychotropic drug use, and sleep deprivation were evaluated. Based on questionnaire reports, 39% of respondents were classified with a mind wandering trait and 13% reported a disturbing thought just before the crash. While strongly correlated, mind wandering state and trait were independently associated with responsibility for a traffic crash (State: OR = 2.51, 95% CI: 1.64-3.83 and Trait: OR = 1.62, 95% CI: 1.22-2.16 respectively). Self-report of distracting thoughts therefore did not capture the entire risk associated with the propensity of the mind to wander, either because of under-reported thoughts and/or other deleterious mechanisms to be further explored.