Evaluating drugged driving: Effects of exemplar pain and anxiety medications.

OBJECTIVE: Distracted and drug-influenced driving presents a major risk for traffic safety morbidity and mortality. As part of an ongoing research program, we examined the effects of a commonly prescribed combination of medications for pain relief: alprazolam, a benzodiazepine, and a hydrocodone preparation, a combination opiate and acetaminophen, on a simulated driving protocol. METHODS: Utilizing a within-subjects design, we recruited 8 healthy experienced drivers without major physical and psychological histories. Using a double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover design, we administered placebo, alprazolam alone, hydrocodone/acetaminophen, and the combination of the 2 drugs in a standardized simulated driving protocol. Measures of lateral and longitudinal control were collected and the data were reduced and statically analyzed. RESULTS: The study observed clear detrimental effects of alprazolam on driving measures of lateral control and longitudinal control. Driving appeared to more aberrant at higher speeds and in rural scenarios. There were no statistical differences between hydrocodone and placebo. A measure of sedation showed that subjects rated alprazolam as more sedating than both hydrocodone and placebo. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that impairing effects of this commonly prescribed combination of pharmacologic agents impact simulated driving performance. Negative changes in driving performance included measures of lateral and longitudinal control, although the deleterious effects on lateral control measures such as standard deviation of lane position (SDLP) were larger and more robust. Although the number of subjects was small, thus making it more difficult to draw conclusions on the narcotic effects, these results suggest that in this combination of central nervous system (CNS)-active drugs the benzodiazepine alprazolam accounted for the majority of impairing drug effects. The effect sizes associated with the hydrocodone preparation ranged from very small to medium. These results have potential implications for prescribing physicians and dispensing pharmacists, traffic safety experts, law enforcement officers, and patients themselves.

Cannabis effects on driving longitudinal control with and without alcohol.

Although evidence suggests cannabis impairs driving, its driving-performance effects are not fully characterized. We aimed to establish cannabis' effects on driving longitudinal control (with and without alcohol, drivers' most common drug combination) relative to psychoactive ∆(9) -tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) blood concentrations. Current occasional (≥1×/last 3 months, ≤3 days per week) cannabis smokers drank placebo or low-dose alcohol, and inhaled 500 mg placebo, low (2.9%), or high (6.7%) THC vaporized cannabis over 10 min ad libitum in separate sessions (within-subject, six conditions). Participants drove (National Advanced Driving Simulator, University of Iowa) simulated drives 0.5-1.3 h post-inhalation. Blood and breath alcohol samples were collected before (0.17 and 0.42 h) and after (1.4 and 2.3 h) driving. We evaluated the mean speed (relative to limit), standard deviation (SD) of speed, percent time spent >10% above/below the speed limit (percent speed high/percent speed low), longitudinal acceleration, and ability to maintain headway relative to a lead vehicle (headway maintenance) against blood THC and breath alcohol concentrations (BrAC). In N=18 completing drivers, THC was associated with a decreased mean speed, increased percent speed low and increased mean following distance during headway maintenance. BrAC was associated with increased SD speed and increased percent speed high, whereas THC was not. Neither was associated with altered longitudinal acceleration. A less-than-additive THC*BrAC interaction was detected in percent speed high (considering only non-zero data and excluding an outlying drive event), suggesting cannabis mitigated drivers' tendency to drive faster with alcohol. Cannabis was associated with slower driving and greater headway, suggesting a possible awareness of impairment and attempt to compensate. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Effect of Blood Collection Time on Measured Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol Concentrations: Implications for Driving Interpretation and Drug Policy.

BACKGROUND: In driving-under-the-influence cases, blood typically is collected approximately 1.5-4 h after an incident, with unknown last intake time. This complicates blood Δ(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) interpretation, owing to rapidly decreasing concentrations immediately after inhalation. We evaluated how decreases in blood THC concentration before collection may affect interpretation of toxicological results. METHODS: Adult cannabis smokers (≥1×/3 months, ≤3 days/week) drank placebo or low-dose alcohol (approximately 0.065% peak breath alcohol concentration) 10 min before inhaling 500 mg placebo, 2.9%, or 6.7% vaporized THC (within-individuals), then took simulated drives 0.5-1.3 h postdose. Blood THC concentrations were determined before and up to 8.3 h postdose (limit of quantification 1 µg/L). RESULTS: In 18 participants, observed Cmax (at 0.17 h) for active (2.9 or 6.7% THC) cannabis were [median (range)] 38.2 µg/L (11.4-137) without alcohol and 47.9 µg/L (13.0-210) with alcohol. THC Cmax concentration decreased 73.5% (3.3%-89.5%) without alcohol and 75.1% (11.5%-85.4%) with alcohol in the first half-hour after active cannabis and 90.3% (76.1%-100%) and 91.3% (53.8%-97.0%), respectively, by 1.4 h postdose. When residual THC (from previous self-administration) was present, concentrations rapidly decreased to preinhalation baselines and fluctuated around them. During-drive THC concentrations previously associated with impairment (≥8.2 µg/L) decreased to median <5 µg/L by 3.3 h postdose and <2 µg/L by 4.8 h postdose; only 1 participant had THC ≥5 µg/L after 3.3 h. CONCLUSIONS: Forensic blood THC concentrations may be lower than common per se cutoffs despite greatly exceeding them while driving. Concentrations during driving cannot be back-extrapolated because of unknown time after intake and interindividual variability in rates of decrease.

Controlled vaporized cannabis, with and without alcohol: subjective effects and oral fluid-blood cannabinoid relationships.

Vaporized cannabis and concurrent cannabis and alcohol intake are commonplace. We evaluated the subjective effects of cannabis, with and without alcohol, relative to blood and oral fluid (OF, advantageous for cannabis exposure screening) cannabinoid concentrations and OF/blood and OF/plasma vaporized-cannabinoid relationships. Healthy adult occasional-to-moderate cannabis smokers received a vaporized placebo or active cannabis (2.9% and 6.7% Δ(9) -tetrahydrocannabinol, THC) with or without oral low-dose alcohol (~0.065g/210L peak breath alcohol concentration [BrAC]) in a within-subjects design. Blood and OF were collected up to 8.3 h post-dose and subjective effects measured at matched time points with visual-analogue scales and 5-point Likert scales. Linear mixed models evaluated subjective effects by THC concentration, BrAC, and interactions. Effects by time point were evaluated by dose-wise analysis of variance (ANOVA). OF versus blood or plasma cannabinoid ratios and correlations were evaluated in paired-positive specimens. Nineteen participants (13 men) completed the study. Blood THC concentration or BrAC significantly associated with subjective effects including 'high', while OF contamination prevented significant OF concentration associations <1.4 h post-dose. Subjective effects persisted through 3.3-4.3 h, with alcohol potentiating the duration of the cannabis effects. Effect-versus-THC concentration and effect-versus-alcohol concentration hystereses were counterclockwise and clockwise, respectively. OF/blood and OF/plasma THC significantly correlated (all Spearman r≥0.71), but variability was high. Vaporized cannabis subjective effects were similar to those previously reported after smoking, with duration extended by concurrent alcohol. Cannabis intake was identified by OF testing, but OF concentration variability limited interpretation. Blood THC concentrations were more consistent across subjects and more accurate at predicting cannabis' subjective effects. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Behavioral and Neurophysiological Signatures of Benzodiazepine-Related Driving Impairments.

Impaired driving due to drug use is a growing problem worldwide; estimates show that 18-23.5% of fatal accidents, and up to 34% of injury accidents may be caused by drivers under the influence of drugs (Drummer et al., 2003; Walsh et al., 2004; NHTSA, 2010). Furthermore, at any given time, up to 16% of drivers may be using drugs that can impair one's driving abilities (NHTSA, 2009). Currently, drug recognition experts (DREs; law enforcement officers with specialized training to identify drugged driving), have the most difficult time with identifying drivers potentially impaired on central nervous system (CNS) depressants (Smith et al., 2002). The fact that the use of benzodiazepines, a type of CNS depressant, is also associated with the greatest likelihood of causing accidents (Dassanayake et al., 2011), further emphasizes the need to improve research tools in this area which can facilitate the refinement of, or additions to, current assessments of impaired driving. Our laboratories collaborated to evaluate both the behavioral and neurophysiological effects of a benzodiazepine, alprazolam, in a driving simulation (miniSim(TM)). This drive was combined with a neurocognitive assessment utilizing time synched neurophysiology (electroencephalography, ECG). While the behavioral effects of benzodiazepines are well characterized (Rapoport et al., 2009), we hypothesized that, with the addition of real-time neurophysiology and the utilization of simulation and neurocognitive assessment, we could find objective assessments of drug impairment that could improve the detection capabilities of DREs. Our analyses revealed that (1) specific driving conditions were significantly more difficult for benzodiazepine impaired drivers and (2) the neurocognitive tasks' metrics were able to classify "impaired" vs. "unimpaired" with up to 80% accuracy based on lane position deviation and lane departures. While this work requires replication in larger studies, our results not only identified criteria that could potentially improve the identification of benzodiazepine intoxication by DREs, but also demonstrated the promise for future studies using this approach to improve upon current, real-world assessments of impaired driving.

Cannabis effects on driving lateral control with and without alcohol.

BACKGROUND: Effects of cannabis, the most commonly encountered non-alcohol drug in driving under the influence cases, are heavily debated. We aim to determine how blood Δ(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentrations relate to driving impairment, with and without alcohol. METHODS: Current occasional (≥1×/last 3 months, ≤3days/week) cannabis smokers drank placebo or low-dose alcohol, and inhaled 500mg placebo, low (2.9%)-THC, or high (6.7%)-THC vaporized cannabis over 10min ad libitum in separate sessions (within-subject design, 6 conditions). Participants drove (National Advanced Driving Simulator, University of Iowa) simulated drives (∼0.8h duration). Blood, oral fluid (OF), and breath alcohol samples were collected before (0.17h, 0.42h) and after (1.4h, 2.3h) driving that occurred 0.5-1.3h after inhalation. We evaluated standard deviations of lateral position (lane weave, SDLP) and steering angle, lane departures/min, and maximum lateral acceleration. RESULTS: In N=18 completers (13 men, ages 21-37years), cannabis and alcohol increased SDLP. Blood THC concentrations of 8.2 and 13.1µg/L during driving increased SDLP similar to 0.05 and 0.08g/210L breath alcohol concentrations, the most common legal alcohol limits. Cannabis-alcohol SDLP effects were additive rather than synergistic, with 5µg/L THC+0.05g/210L alcohol showing similar SDLP to 0.08g/210L alcohol alone. Only alcohol increased lateral acceleration and the less-sensitive lane departures/min parameters. OF effectively documented cannabis exposure, although with greater THC concentration variability than paired blood samples. CONCLUSIONS: SDLP was a sensitive cannabis-related lateral control impairment measure. During drive blood THC ≥8.2µg/L increased SDLP similar to notably-impairing alcohol concentrations. Despite OF's screening value, OF variability poses challenges in concentration-based effects interpretation.

Controlled Cannabis Vaporizer Administration: Blood and Plasma Cannabinoids with and without Alcohol.

BACKGROUND: Increased medical and legal cannabis intake is accompanied by greater use of cannabis vaporization and more cases of driving under the influence of cannabis. Although simultaneous Δ(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and alcohol use is frequent, potential pharmacokinetic interactions are poorly understood. Here we studied blood and plasma vaporized cannabinoid disposition, with and without simultaneous oral low-dose alcohol. METHODS: Thirty-two adult cannabis smokers (≥1 time/3 months, ≤3 days/week) drank placebo or low-dose alcohol (target approximately 0.065% peak breath-alcohol concentration) 10 min before inhaling 500 mg placebo, low-dose (2.9%) THC, or high-dose (6.7%) THC vaporized cannabis (6 within-individual alcohol-cannabis combinations). Blood and plasma were obtained before and up to 8.3 h after ingestion. RESULTS: Nineteen participants completed all sessions. Median (range) maximum blood concentrations (Cmax) for low and high THC doses (no alcohol) were 32.7 (11.4-66.2) and 42.2 (15.2-137) µg/L THC, respectively, and 2.8 (0-9.1) and 5.0 (0-14.2) µg/L 11-OH-THC. With alcohol, low and high dose Cmax values were 35.3 (13.0-71.4) and 67.5 (18.1-210) µg/L THC and 3.7 (1.4-6.0) and 6.0 (0-23.3) µg/L 11-OH-THC, significantly higher than without alcohol. With a THC detection cutoff of ≥1 µg/L, ≥16.7% of participants remained positive 8.3 h postdose, whereas ≤21.1% were positive by 2.3 h with a cutoff of ≥5 µg/L. CONCLUSIONS: Vaporization is an effective THC delivery route. The significantly higher blood THC and 11-OH-THC Cmax values with alcohol possibly explain increased performance impairment observed from cannabis-alcohol combinations. Chosen driving-related THC cutoffs should be considered carefully to best reflect performance impairment windows. Our results will help facilitate forensic interpretation and inform the debate on drugged driving legislation.