Driving performance of long-term users of sedating antidepressants and benzodiazepines.

OBJECTIVE: Using benzodiazepines and certain antidepressants is associated with an increased risk of motor vehicle crashes due to impaired driving skills. Hence, several countries prohibit people who use these drugs from driving. Traffic regulations for driving under the influence of these drugs are, however, largely based on single-dose studies with healthy participants. The effects of drugs on chronic users may be different because of potential development of tolerance or by adapting behavior. In this study, we test the effects of anti-depressants, hypnotics, or anxiolytics use on driving performance in patients who use these drugs for different durations and compare the effects to healthy controls' performance. METHODS: Sixty-six healthy controls and 82 medication users were recruited to perform four drives in a driving simulator. Patients were divided into groups that used anti-depressants, hypnotics, or anxiolytics, for shorter or longer than 3 years (i.e. LT3- or LT3+, respectively). The minimum term of use was 6 months. Driving behavior was measured in terms of longitudinal and lateral control (speed variability and Standard Deviation of Lateral Position: SDLP), brake reaction time, and time headway. Impaired driving performance was defined as performing similar to driving with a Blood Alcohol Concentration of 0.5‰ or higher, determined by means of non-inferiority analyses. RESULTS: Reaction time analyses revealed inconclusive findings in all groups. No significant performance differences between matched healthy controls, LT3- (n = 2), and LT3+ (n = 8) anxiolytics users were found. LT3+ antidepressants users (n = 12) did not perform inferior to their matched controls in terms of SDLP. LT3- hypnotics users (n = 6) showed more speed variability than their matched healthy controls, while this effect was not found for the LT3+ group (n = 14): the latter did not perform inferior to the healthy controls. Regarding Time Headway, no conclusions about the LT3- hypnotics group could be drawn, while the LT3+ group did not perform inferior compared to the control group. CONCLUSIONS: The small number of anxiolytics users prohibits drawing conclusions about clinical relevance. Although many outcomes were inconclusive, there is evidence that some elements of complex driving performance may not be impaired (anymore) after using antidepressants or hypnotics longer than 3 years.

Cannabis containing equivalent concentrations of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) induces less state anxiety than THC-dominant cannabis.

RATIONALE: Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), an active component of cannabis, can cause anxiety in some users during intoxication. Cannabidiol (CBD), another constituent of cannabis, has anxiolytic properties suggesting that cannabis products containing CBD in addition to THC may produce less anxiety than THC-only products. Findings to date around this issue have been inconclusive and could conceivably depend on moderating factors such as baseline anxiety levels in users. OBJECTIVE: The present study examined whether anxiety following single doses of vaporised THC, CBD and THC/CBD might be explained by state and trait anxiety levels at baseline. METHODS: A placebo-controlled, randomised, within-subjects study including 26 healthy recreational cannabis users tested the effects of vaporised THC-dominant cannabis (13.75 mg THC), CBD-dominant cannabis (13.75 mg CBD), THC/CBD-equivalent cannabis (13.75 mg THC/13.75 mg CBD) and placebo cannabis on anxiety. Self-rated trait anxiety was assessed with the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). State levels of anxiety were objectively assessed with a computer-based emotional Stroop task (EST) and subjectively rated with the STAI-state questionnaire and a visual analogue scale. RESULTS: Both THC and THC/CBD significantly increased self-rated state anxiety compared to placebo. State anxiety after THC/CBD was significantly lower than after THC alone. THC-induced anxiety was independent of anxiety at baseline. When baseline anxiety was low, CBD completely counteracted THC-induced anxiety; however, when baseline anxiety was high, CBD did not counteract THC-induced anxiety. There were no effects of any treatment condition on the EST. CONCLUSION: Overall, the study demonstrated that the THC/CBD-equivalent cannabis induces less state anxiety than THC-dominant cannabis.

The use patterns of novel psychedelics: experiential fingerprints of substituted phenethylamines, tryptamines and lysergamides.

BACKGROUND: Novel psychedelics (NPs) are an expanding set of compounds, presenting new challenges for drug policy and opportunities for clinical research. Unlike their classical derivatives, little is known regarding their use profiles or their subjective effects. AIMS: The purpose of this study was to compile usage patterns and adverse event rates for individual NPs belonging to each of three main psychedelic structural families. Targeting the most widely used representatives for each class, we expanded on their phenomenological distinctions. METHODS: A two-part survey was employed. We investigated the prevalence of novel phenethylamines, tryptamine and lysergamides in NP users (N = 1180), contrasting the type and incidence of adverse events (AEs) using a set of logistic regressions. Honing in on 2-4-Bromo-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl)ethanamine (2C-B) (48.6%), 1-propionyl-lysergic acid diethylamide (1P-LSD) (34.2%) and 4-Acetoxy-N,N-dimethyltryptamine (4-AcO-DMT) (23.1%), we examined their phenomenological separability using a gradient boosting (XGBoost) supervised classifier. RESULTS: Novel phenethylamines had the highest prevalence of use (61.5%) seconded by tryptamines (43.8%) and lysergamides (42.9%). Usage patterns were identified for 32 different compounds, demonstrating variable dosages, durations and a common oral route of administration. Compared to phenethylamines, the odds for tryptamines and lysergamides users were significantly less for overall physical AEs. No significant differences in overall psychological AEs were found. Overall model area under the curve (AUC) stood at 0.79 with sensitivity (50.0%) and specificity (60.0%) for 2C-B ranking lowest. CONCLUSION: NP classes may hold distinct AE rates and phenomenology, the latter potentially clouded by the subjective nature of these experiences. Further targeted research is warranted.

Validating lane drifts as a predictive measure of drug or sleepiness induced driving impairment.

BACKGROUND: Standard deviation of lateral position (SDLP) has been accepted as a reliable parameter for measuring driving impairment due to lowered vigilance caused by sleepiness or the use of sedating drugs. Recently, lane drifts were proposed as an additional outcome measure quantifying momentary lapses of attention. The purpose of this study was to validate lane drifts as outcome measure of driver impairment in a large data pool from two independent research centers. METHODS: Data from 11 placebo-controlled studies that assessed the impact of alcohol, hypnotics, and sleep deprivation on actual driving performance were pooled. In total, 717 on-the-road tests performed by 315 drivers were subjected to an automated algorithm to detect occurrences of lane drifts. Lane drifts were defined as deviations > 100 cm from the mean (LDmlp) and from the absolute lateral position (LDalp) for 8 s. RESULTS: The number of LDmlp was low and did not differ between treatments and baseline, i.e., 14 vs. 3 events, respectively. LDalp were frequent and significantly higher during treatment relative to baseline, i.e., 1646 vs. 470 events. The correlation between LDalp and SDLP in the treatment conditions was very high (rs = 0.77). The frequency of the occurrence of treatment-induced lane drifts however depended on baseline SDLP of drivers, whereas treatment-induced changes in SDLP occurred independent of baseline SDLP. CONCLUSION: LDmlp is not useful as an outcome measure of driver impairment due to its rare occurrence, even when treatment-induced increments in SDLP are evident. Treatment effects on LDalp and SDLP are closely related.