Effects of kratom on driving: Results from a cross-sectional survey, ecological momentary assessment, and pilot simulated driving Study.

OBJECTIVES: Despite widespread kratom use, there is a lack of knowledge regarding its effects on driving. We evaluated the self-reported driving behaviors of kratom consumers and assessed their simulated-driving performance after self-administering kratom products. METHODS: We present results from: 1) a remote, national study of US adults who regularly use kratom, and 2) an in-person substudy from which we re-recruited participants. In the national study (N = 357), participants completed a detailed survey and a 15-day ecological momentary assessment (EMA) that monitored naturalistic kratom use. For the remote study, outcomes were self-reported general and risky driving behaviors, perceived impairment, and driving confidence following kratom administration. For the in-person substudy, 10 adults consumed their typical kratom products and their driving performance on a high-fidelity driving simulator pre- and post-kratom administration was evaluated. RESULTS: Over 90% of participants surveyed self-reported driving under the influence of kratom. Most reported low rates of risky driving behavior and expressed high confidence in their driving ability after taking kratom. This was consistent with EMA findings: participants reported feeling confident in their driving ability and perceived little impairment within 15-180 min after using kratom. In the in-person substudy, there were no significant changes in simulated driving performance after taking kratom. CONCLUSIONS: Using kratom before driving appears routine, however, self-reported and simulated driving findings suggest kratom effects at self-selected doses among regular kratom consumers do not produce significant changes in subjective and objective measures of driving impairment. Research is needed to objectively characterize kratom's impact on driving in regular and infrequent consumers.

Ecological Momentary Assessment of Self-Reported Kratom Use, Effects, and Motivations Among US Adults.

Importance: Kratom products, which are sold legally in most of the US, contain alkaloids with opioidergic, adrenergic, and serotonergic activity. Millions of people use kratom to relieve pain, improve mood, or self-manage substance use disorders (SUDs). Kratom use has primarily been examined via surveys, in which recall biases among satisfied users may lead to minimization of transient negative outcomes. Further prospective study of kratom use, such as with ecological momentary assessment (EMA), is needed. Objective: To characterize proximal motivators, effects, and patterns of kratom use and to assess whether use frequency is associated with motivations, effects, past-year criteria for SUD for kratom (KUD), or other substance use. Design, Setting, and Participants: For this prospective cross-sectional study, an intensive longitudinal smartphone-based EMA in which participants' current behaviors and experiences were repeatedly sampled in real time was conducted between July 1 and October 31, 2022. Participants comprised a convenience sample of US adults who used kratom at least 3 days per week for at least 4 weeks at the time of online screening. Criteria for past-year KUD were based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition. Data analysis was performed between November 2022 and November 2023. Exposure: The exposure was 13 401 kratom-use events across 15 days. Main Outcomes and Measures: A baseline survey covering demographics, health, kratom attitudes and behaviors, use motivations, other substance use, and KUD was administered before EMA. Data for the following EMA entries were then collected: event-contingent entries for kratom use (product, dose, and proximal motivations), follow-up entries (short-term effects and consequences of use events), random-prompt entries (mood), beginning-of-day entries (effects of kratom on sleep), and end-of-day entries (daily subjective descriptions of kratom effects). Bayesian regression was used to estimate means and credible intervals. Results: A total of 357 participants completed the EMA. Their mean (SD) age was 38.0 (11.1) years; more than half were men (198 [55.5%]). Participants reported overall motivators of use on the baseline survey that involved managing psychiatric and SUD problems, but proximal motivators evaluated during the EMA involved situation-specific needs such as increasing energy and productivity and decreasing pain. Acute effects were considered congruent with daily obligations. Use patterns, despite having some distinguishing features, were generally similar in their motivators and effects; participants used kratom predominantly during the daytime and seemed to find use frequencies that suited their needs. Higher use patterns were associated with symptoms of physical dependence (eg, withdrawal or tolerance). Co-used substances included caffeine, nicotine, vitamins, and cannabis. Conclusions and Relevance: Most participants in this study reported using kratom in a seemingly nonproblematic way. When such use appeared problematic, the key element was usually that withdrawal avoidance became a proximal motivator. Longitudinal studies examining changes in kratom use patterns and effects over time are needed.

Need for clarity and context in case reports on kratom use, assessment, and intervention.

This Letter to the Editor is a response to Broyan and colleagues who recently published a Case Report presenting data on 28 patients in the United States who identified kratom as their primary substance of use and who were subsequently induced on buprenorphine/naloxone for a reported diagnosis of kratom use disorder. We applaud the authors for helping to advance the science on kratom and recognize the difficulties in conducting kratom-related clinical assessment and research. However, a number of inconsistences and generalizations were identified in this Case Report, which also lacked some critical context. Importantly, such inconsistencies and generalizations can be observed throughout kratom-specific case reports. We feel this is now an important opportunity to highlight these issues that are present in the Broyan and colleagues Case report but emphasize that they are not unique to it. We do this with the hope that by acknowledging these issues it can help inform editors, clinicians, and researchers who may not be familiar with kratom and, as a result of this unfamiliarity, may inadvertently present findings in a manner that could confuse readers and even misinform clinical researchers and practitioners.