A randomized, rater-blinded, crossover study of the effects of oxymorphone extended release, fed versus fasting, on cognitive performance as tested with CANTAB in opioid-tolerant subjects.

BACKGROUND: The maximum plasma concentration (Cmax ) of oxymorphone extended release (ER) 20 mg and 40 mg is approximately 50% higher in fed than in fasted subjects, with most of the difference in area-under-the-curve (AUC) occurring in the first 4 hours post-dose. Hence, the US FDA recommends in the approved labeling that oxymorphone ER is taken at least 1 hour before or 2 hours after eating. METHODS: In order to determine the potential impact on cognitive performance of the increased absorption of oxymorphone ER, fed versus fasting, we conducted a randomized, rater-blinded, crossover study in 30 opioid-tolerant subjects, using tests from the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB). The subjects randomly received 40 mg oxymorphone ER after a high-fat meal of approximately 1,010 kCal or after fasting for 8-12 hours, and were tested 1 hour and 3 hours post-dose. RESULTS: The CANTAB tests, Spatial Recognition Memory (SRM) and Spatial Working Memory (SWM), showed no statistically significant differences between the fed and fasting conditions. However, sustained attention, as measured by the Rapid Visual Information Processing (RVP) CANTAB test, showed a statistically significant interaction of fed versus fasting and post-dose time of testing (F[1,28] = 6.88, P = 0.01), suggesting that 40 mg oxymorphone ER after a high-fat meal versus fasting mitigates the learning effect in this particular cognition domain from 1 hour to 3 hours post-dose. CONCLUSION: Oxymorphone 40 mg ER affected cognitive performance similarly within 3 hours post-dose, whether given on an empty stomach or after a high-fat meal, suggesting that the effect of food on plasma concentration may not be relevant in the medication's impact on cognition.

Next-day effects of ramelteon (8 mg), zopiclone (7.5 mg), and placebo on highway driving performance, memory functioning, psychomotor performance, and mood in healthy adult subjects.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the next-morning residual effects of ramelteon (8 mg), zopiclone (7.5 mg), and placebo on driving performance, memory functioning, psychomotor performance, and mood in healthy adult subjects following bedtime dosing and a middle of the night awakening. DESIGN: Single-center, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled, crossover study. SETTING: Utrecht University, The Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: 30 healthy volunteers (15 males and 15 females). INTERVENTIONS: a single dose of ramelteon (8 mg), zopiclone (7.5 mg), and placebo, administered at bedtime. MEASUREMENTS: A balance test was performed at night. Other tests were performed the following morning, 8.5 h after administration. Subjects performed a 100-km highway driving test in normal traffic. Primary outcome measure was the standard deviation of the lateral position (SDLP), i.e., the weaving of the car. After driving, cognitive, memory, and psychomotor tests were performed and mood was assessed. RESULTS: SDLP was significantly increased after the intake of ramelteon (+2.2 cm) and zopiclone (+2.9 cm). Ramelteon and zopiclone produced significant impairment on reaction time (P<0.024) in the Sternberg Memory Scanning Test, slow (P<0.007) and fast (P<0.010) tracking, reaction speed (P<0.015) and tracking (P<0.001) in the Divided Attention Test, and delayed recall (P<0.032) in the Word Learning Test. In contrast to ramelteon, zopiclone additionally impaired performance on the Digit Symbol Substitution Test (P<0.001) and the balance test (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Ramelteon (8 mg) and zopiclone (7.5 mg) significantly impaired driving performance, cognitive, memory, and psychomotor performance the morning following bedtime administration. In contrast to zopiclone, ramelteon produced no balance impairments. CLINICAL TRIAL IDENTIFIER: NCT00319215 (www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Methylphenidate significantly improves declarative memory functioning of adults with ADHD.

BACKGROUND: Declarative memory deficits are common in untreated adults with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), but limited evidence exists to support improvement after treatment with methylphenidate. The objective of this study was to examine the effects of methylphenidate on memory functioning of adults with ADHD. METHODS: Eighteen adults with ADHD who were clinical responders to methylphenidate participated in this randomized crossover trial. After 3 days of no treatment, patients received in random order either their usual methylphenidate dose (mean: 14.7 mg; range: 10-30 mg) or placebo, separated by a 6-7-day washout period. Patients performed an immediate word recall test 1 h after treatment administration. Three hours after intake, patients performed the second part of the memory test (delayed word recall and a recognition test). RESULTS: Delayed recognition and immediate recall was similar on treatment and on placebo. Delayed word recall was significantly better in the methylphenidate than in the placebo condition (F (1, 17) = 7.0, p < 0.017). A significant correlation was found between prestudy CES-D depression scores and difference scores on delayed recall (r = 0.602, p < 0.008). CONCLUSION: Methylphenidate improves declarative memory functioning in patients with ADHD. New studies should further examine whether subclinical depressive symptoms mediate the effect of methylphenidate on declarative memory.

Manipulation specific effects of mental fatigue: evidence from novelty processing and simulated driving.

Mental fatigue has a wide range of effects on cognitive, behavioral, and motivational measures. It can be expected that specific effects in which fatigue becomes manifest is dependent on the nature of fatigue-inducing activity (e.g., level of control and working memory demands). This study examined how fatigue caused by tasks that differ on the level of working memory demands (0-Back, 2-Back) affects brain function (novelty processing, P3a) and performance (driving). Results showed that fatigue did not affect driving performance. Fatigue did reduce P3a amplitude, but only after 2-Back. P3a was also reduced during driving. The effects of fatigue and driving on P3a were additive. In summary, both driving and fatigue reduced P3a amplitude. Driving effects were always present. Fatigue effects on novelty processing were dependent on the cognitive demands of the fatigue-inducing task.

Effects of alcohol on attention orienting and dual-task performance during simulated driving: an event-related potential study.

Driving is a complex task and is susceptible to inattention and distraction. Moreover, alcohol has a detrimental effect on driving performance, possibly due to alcohol-induced attention deficits. The aim of the present study was to assess the effects of alcohol on simulated driving performance and attention orienting and allocation, as assessed by event-related potentials (ERPs). Thirty-two participants completed two test runs in the Divided Attention Steering Simulator (DASS) with blood alcohol concentrations (BACs) of 0.00%, 0.02%, 0.05%, 0.08% and 0.10%. Sixteen participants performed the second DASS test run with a passive auditory oddball to assess alcohol effects on involuntary attention shifting. Sixteen other participants performed the second DASS test run with an active auditory oddball to assess alcohol effects on dual-task performance and active attention allocation. Dose-dependent impairments were found for reaction times, the number of misses and steering error, even more so in dual-task conditions, especially in the active oddball group. ERP amplitudes to novel irrelevant events were also attenuated in a dose-dependent manner. The P3b amplitude to deviant target stimuli decreased with blood alcohol concentration only in the dual-task condition. It is concluded that alcohol increases distractibility and interference from secondary task stimuli, as well as reduces attentional capacity and dual-task integrality.

Effect of hypnotic drugs on body balance and standing steadiness.

BACKGROUND: Disturbed body balance and standing steadiness are problematic for those who wake up at night or in the morning after using hypnotic drugs. As a result, falls and hip fractures are frequently reported in patients using sleep medication. METHODS: A literature search was performed to identify double blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials that examined body balance and standing steadiness. Drugs that were searched were nitrazepam, triazolam, lorazepam, temazepam, loprazolam, flunitrazepam, flurazepam, and the Z-drugs zopiclone, zolpidem and zaleplon. RESULTS: A total of 57 studies were eligible for inclusion. Results showed that both benzodiazepine hypnotics and the Z-drugs significantly impair body balance and standing steadiness after single dose administration. Impairments correlate significantly with blood plasma levels and are greatest at peak plasma concentrations, but are sometimes still present upon awakening. Balance problems were dose-related and most pronounced in elderly. Co-administration of alcohol aggravated the impairment. After repeated daily use of hypnotic drugs partial tolerance develops to the impairing effects on standing steadiness. CONCLUSION: Single dose administration of benzodiazepine hypnotics and Z-drugs significantly impair body balance in a dose-dependent manner. Zolpidem and zopiclone produced similar significant impairment as benzodiazepine hypnotics. Zaleplon significantly impaired balance up to 2 h after intake. Partial tolerance develops after repeated daily use. In conclusion, patients should be warned about the possible risk of imbalance and falls due to the use of sleep medication.

Novice drivers' performance after different alcohol dosages and placebo in the divided-attention steering simulator (DASS).

RATIONALE: The divided-attention steering simulator (DASS) is designed to measure lane-keeping (i.e., a tracking task using a steering wheel) while performing a secondary visual task (responding to digits that appear in the corners of the computer screen). Some studies have already used the DASS, but the magnitude of impairment is difficult to interpret because reference values are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To examine the magnitude of impairment after administration of four different dosages of alcohol and placebo. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-two healthy young adults participated in this randomized, single-blind crossover trial. Subjects received alcohol to gain a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.02%, 0.05%, 0.08%, and 0.10% or alcohol-placebo. Sixteen subjects performed a 30-min test in DASS (dual-task condition). Outcome measures were steering error, reaction time, and percentage of errors. Sixteen other subjects performed the test without performing the secondary peripheral task (single-task condition). RESULTS: Twenty-eight subjects (novice drivers; drivers' license up to 5 years) were included in the analyses. Dose-dependent impairment was found in both the single-task condition (F ((4,11)) = 10.86, p < 0.001) and the dual-task condition (F ((4,9)) = 5.58, p < 0.015). Performance at all BAC levels differed significantly (p < 0.05) from alcohol-placebo, except BAC 0.02%. With increasing BAC levels, subjects made more errors and reacted slower on the peripheral visual search task, but these effects did not reach significance. CONCLUSION: With increasing BAC, dose-dependent impairment was found. The DASS seems to be a suitable divided-attention task that is useful in psychopharmacological research and training of novice drivers.

Methylphenidate significantly improves driving performance of adults with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: a randomized crossover trial.

Although patients with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) have reported improved driving performance on methylphenidate, limited evidence exists to support an effect of treatment on driving performance and some regions prohibit driving on methylphenidate. A randomized, crossover trial examining the effects of methylphenidate versus placebo on highway driving in 18 adults with ADHD was carried out. After three days of no treatment, patients received either their usual methylphenidate dose (mean: 14.7 mg; range: 10-30 mg) or placebo and then the opposite treatment after a six to seven days washout period. Patients performed a 100 km driving test during normal traffic, 1.5 h after treatment administration. Standard deviation of lateral position (SDLP), the weaving of the car, was the primary outcome measure. Secondary outcome measurements included the standard deviation of speed and patient reports of driving performance. Driving performance was significantly better in the methylphenidate than in the placebo condition, as reflected by the SDLP difference (2.3 cm, 95% CI = 0.8-3.8, P = 0.004). Variation in speed was similar on treatment and on placebo (-0.05 km/h, 95% CI = -0.4 to 0.2, P = 0.70). Among adults with ADHD, with a history of a positive clinical response to methylphenidate, methylphenidate significantly improves driving performance.

Zolpidem and traffic safety - the importance of treatment compliance.

Zolpidem is among the most frequently prescribed hypnotic drugs for those who suffer from insomnia. Recent media reports drew attention to driving impairment after zolpidem misuse. This review summarizes the available data on the effects of recommended use and misuse of zolpidem on driving ability and traffic safety. Both experimental studies and roadside evidence were taken into account. From these studies it must be concluded that patients should fully comply with the prescription instructions of zolpidem, i.e. to take the medication just prior to a full 8 hours of uninterrupted sleep. If this strategy is adopted, zolpidem is a safe alternative to benzodiazpine hypnotics and zopiclone who do show significant driving impairment the morning following bedtime administration. However, to ensure traffic safety higher dosages than recommended (10 mg) or allowing less than 8 hours between zolpidem intake and actual operation of a motor vehicle should be avoided.

Effects of an opioid (oxycodone/paracetamol) and an NSAID (bromfenac) on driving ability, memory functioning, psychomotor performance, pupil size, and mood.

OBJECTIVE: It has been suggested that driving a car is relatively safe when the driver is treated with nonsteroid anti-inflammatory drugs than when he or she is treated with opioid analgesics. However, the evidence for this statement is scarce. The objective of this study was to determine the effects of a nonsteroid anti-inflammatory drug (bromfenac 25 mg and 50 mg) and an opioid (oxycodone/paracetamol 5/325 mg and 10/650 mg), and placebo on driving ability, memory functioning, psychomotor performance, pupil size, and mood. METHODS: Out of 30 healthy volunteers, 18 completed this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study, before the study had to be stopped due to bromfenac being pulled out from the market. One hour after administration of the drugs, the participants performed a standardized driving test during normal traffic. Thereafter, driving quality, mental effort and mental activation during driving were assessed. A laboratory test battery was performed 2.5 hours after administration of the drug. Visual analog scales assessing mood and pupil measurements were performed on several occasions during each test day. RESULTS: Both analgesics did not significantly affect performance in any test. However, volunteers reported that significantly more effort was needed to perform the driving test when treated with oxycodone/paracetamol, and that they experienced increased sedation and reduced alertness. Also, the pupil size was significantly decreased. In contrast, subjective assessments after both doses of bromfenac matched that of placebo. DISCUSSION: No significant impairment in behavior was found in the volunteers for both bromfenac and oxycodone/paracetamol. The lack of impairment from oxycodone/paracetamol may have been related to the participants reporting increased effort during driving while under the influence of this drug.

Acute and subchronic effects of amitriptyline 25mg on actual driving in chronic neuropathic pain patients.

The acute and subchronic effects of low doses nocturnally administered amitriptyline were compared to placebo in a double-blind crossover randomized study on driving ability and driving-related skills involving seven chronic neuropathic pain patients. Performance testing occurred at the first and last day of each 15-day drug administration period, which was preceded by a 6-day washout phase. A standardized method of measuring driving ability, the on-the-road driving test, was performed on all visits. Patients were instructed to drive with a steady lateral position while maintaining a constant speed of 95 km/h. The primary outcome of the driving test is the Standard Deviation of Lateral Position (SDLP, cm), which is an index of weaving of the car. At the first treatment day, driving performance was significantly impaired in patients after nocturnal administration of 25 mg amitriptyline compared to placebo. The increase in SDLP of 3 cm was higher than the increment generally observed with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.5 mg/ml or higher, the legal limit for driving in many countries. Also, reaction times on a memory test were significantly increased, indicating worse performance after acute treatment of amitriptyline compared to placebo. In contrast, after 2 weeks of treatment, no significant differences were found between amitriptyline and placebo, suggesting that tolerance had developed to the impairing effects of amitriptyline.

Pain and attention: attentional disruption or distraction?

UNLABELLED: The effect of pain processing on attention capacity during visual search was examined in 2 experiments. In the first experiment, we investigated whether pain draws on the same limited resources as attentional task performance. It was hypothesized that pain would negatively affect task performance under different load manipulations. Low and high load conditions of a visual search task were presented in a mixed design combined with a painfully cold or neutral cold pressor test. Performance was not affected by pain. In experiment 2, low and high load conditions were separated in different blocks to study whether pain perception was affected when task load could be anticipated. Again, pain did not significantly affect task performance. In contrast, subjective pain intensity scores were significantly lower after performing the high load compared with the low load condition. Simultaneous recordings of event-related potentials indicated an increased negativity during the pain compared with the control condition. Also, in the early (350 to 450 msec) interval of event-related potentials, an increase in negativity was found for the high load compared with the low load condition. Topographic distributions suggested that pain and task load are mediated by qualitatively different resources. PERSPECTIVE: Our findings indicate that highly demanding attentional task performance and pain processing interfere as a result of difficulties in allocating attention. The clinical relevance of this finding is that performing a highly demanding task might distract attention from pain.

Hypnotics and driving safety: meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials applying the on-the-road driving test.

BACKGROUND: Many people who use hypnotics are outpatients and are likely to drive a car the day after drug intake. The purpose of these meta-analyses was to determine whether or not this is safe. METHODS: Placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind trials were selected if using the on-the-road driving test to determine driving ability the day following one or two nights of treatment administration. Primary outcome measure of the driving test was the Standard Deviation of Lateral Position (SDLP); i.e., the weaving of the car. Fixed effects model meta-analyses were performed. Effect size (ES) was computed using mean standardized (weighted) difference scores between treatment and corresponding placebo SDLP values. RESULTS: Ten studies, published from 1984 to 2002 (207 subjects), were included in the meta-analyses. The morning following bedtime administration, i.e. 10-11 hours after dosing, significant driving impairment was found for the recommended dose of various benzodiazepine hypnotics (ES=0.42; 95% Confidence Interval (CI)=0.14 to 0.71). Twice the recommended dose impaired driving both in the morning (ES=0.68; CI=0.39 to 0.97) and afternoon, i.e. 16-17 hours after dosing (ES=0.57; CI=0.26 to 0.88). Zopiclone 7.5 mg also impaired driving in the morning (ES=0.89; CI=0.54 to 1.23). Zaleplon (10 and 20 mg) and zolpidem (10 mg) did not affect driving performance the morning after dosing. Following middle-of-the-night administration, significantly impaired driving performance was found for zopiclone 7.5 mg (ES=1.51, CI=0.85 to 2.17), zolpidem 10 mg (ES=0.66, CI=0.13 to 1.19) and zolpidem 20 mg (ES=1.16, CI=0.60 to 1.72). Zaleplon (10 and 20 mg) did not affect driving performance. CONCLUSIONS: The analyses show that driving a car the morning following nocturnal treatment with benzodiazepines and zopiclone is unsafe, whereas the recommended dose of zolpidem (10 mg) and zaleplon (10 mg) do not affect driving ability.

Residual effects of sleep medication on driving ability.

Most patients using hypnotics are ambulatory and presumably have a job and drive a car. Since driving a car is one of the most common but potentially dangerous daily activities, hypnotics should act rapidly when needed, but daytime sleepiness and other residual effects that may impair performance are unwanted. This review summarizes the effects of hypnotics on driving ability as determined with the on-the-road driving test during normal traffic. Supportive evidence from epidemiological data, and results from driving simulators and closed-road studies are also considered. On-the-road studies revealed that benzodiazepine hypnotics significantly impaired driving ability the morning following bedtime administration. Impairment was sometimes also significant in the afternoon (16-17 h after administration). Similar driving impairment was observed with zopiclone. However, the magnitude of impairment depends on various factors including the half-life and dosage of the drug, and the time after administration. The results from on-the-road driving studies are supported by evidence obtained in driving simulators and laboratory tests. Epidemiological data and on-the-road studies show that tolerance develops to the impairing effects of hypnotics. However, this is a slow process, and impairment may persist. Patients treated with benzodiazepine hypnotics or zopiclone should be cautioned when driving a car. Both zolpidem and zaleplon do not significantly affect driving performance the morning following bedtime administration. Middle-of-the-night administration of zolpidem significantly impairs driving ability in a dose-dependent manner. In contrast, zaleplon did not affect driving ability 4 h after middle-of-the-night administration.

Antihistamines and driving ability: evidence from on-the-road driving studies during normal traffic.

BACKGROUND: All antihistamines are capable of crossing the blood-brain barrier and thus may cause sedation. Most antihistamine users are ambulatory patients and therefore presumably drive a car. OBJECTIVE: To summarize the effects of antihistamine drugs on driving ability. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: A literature search (MEDLINE and cross-references) was performed using the keywords driving and antihistamine. Sixteen studies using the on-the-road driving test during normal traffic were included in the review. Studies were double-blind and placebo-controlled and included a positive control. RESULTS: First-generation antihistamines (diphenhydramine, triprolidine, terfenadine, dexchlorpheniramine, clemastine) significantly impair driving performance after both one-time and repeated (daily) administration. Second-generation antihistamines (cetirizine, loratadine, ebastine, mizolastine, acrivastine, emedastine, mequitazine) may also impair driving performance, but the magnitude and extent of impairment depend on the administered dose, sex, and time between testing and treatment administration. Tolerance develops after 4 to 5 days of administration, but impairment is not absent. Third-generation antihistamines (fexofenadine and levocetirizine) have been shown to produce no driving impairment after both one-time and repeated administration. CONCLUSIONS: First- and second-generation antihistamines may significantly impair driving performance. In the context of driving safety but also taking into account the cardiotoxic properties of some of the second-generation antihistamines, we advise treating patients with third-generation antihistamines such as fexofenadine and levocetirizine.

Clinical pharmacology, clinical efficacy, and behavioral toxicity of alprazolam: a review of the literature.

Alprazolam is a benzodiazepine derivative that is currently used in the treatment of generalized anxiety, panic attacks with or without agoraphobia, and depression. Alprazolam has a fast onset of symptom relief (within the first week); it is unlikely to produce dependency or abuse. No tolerance to its therapeutic effect has been reported. At discontinuation of alprazolam treatment, withdrawal and rebound symptoms are common. Hence, alprazolam discontinuation must be tapered. An exhaustive review of the literature showed that alprazolam is significantly superior to placebo, and is at least equally effective in the relief of symptoms as tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), such as imipramine. However, although alprazolam and imipramine are significantly more effective than placebo in the treatment of panic attacks, Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs) appear to be superior to either of the two drugs. Therefore, alprazolam is recommended as a second line treatment option, when SSRIs are not effective or well tolerated. In addition to its therapeutic effects, alprazolam produces adverse effects, such as drowsiness and sedation. Since alprazolam is widely used, many clinical studies investigated its cognitive and psychomotor effects. It is evident from these studies that alprazolam may impair performance in a variety of skills in healthy volunteers as well as in patients. Since the majority of alprazolam users are outpatients, this behavioral impairment limits the safe use of alprazolam in patients routinely engaged in potentially dangerous daily activities, such as driving a car.

Driving ability after acute and sub-chronic administration of levocetirizine and diphenhydramine: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

RATIONALE: Sedation following antihistamine use poses a danger to ambulant patients involved in daily activities such as driving. OBJECTIVE: To investigate effects of levocetirizine (5 mg), diphenhydramine (50 mg), and placebo on driving ability during normal traffic. METHODS: Forty-eight healthy volunteers participated in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial. Treatments were administrated on days 1, 2, 3 and 4, exactly 1.5 h before the start of the standardized driving test (performed on day 1 and day 4). In the standardized driving test, subjects were instructed to drive with a steady lateral position, while maintaining a constant speed (95 km/h). Primary parameter was the standard deviation of lateral position (SDLP; cm). Statistical analyses were performed separately for day 1 and day 4, using analysis of variance and an equivalence test. Equivalence to placebo was evidenced if the 95% confidence interval lay between -2.6 cm and +2.6 cm. RESULTS: SDLP after levocetirizine was equivalent to placebo on both day 1 (-0.66 cm; +1.12 cm) and day 4 (-0.37 cm; +1.28 cm). In contrast, SDLP after diphenhydramine differed significantly from placebo on both day 1 ( P<0.0001) and day 4 ( P<0.0003). On day 1, the 95% confidence interval of diphenhydramine (+1.85 cm; +3.63 cm) was partially above the upper equivalence limit (+2.6 cm), indicating clinically relevant driving impairment. On day 4, however, the 95% confidence interval of diphenhydramine (+0.74 cm; +2.38 cm) was contained within the acceptance range. CONCLUSION: In contrast to diphenhydramine, driving performance was not significantly affected while using 5 mg levocetirizine once daily.

Alcohol hangover effects on memory functioning and vigilance performance after an evening of binge drinking.

The impairing effects on memory functioning after acute alcohol intoxication in healthy volunteers and after chronic use in alcoholics are well established. However, research determining the next-morning effects of a single episode of binge drinking on memory functioning is scarce. A total of 48 healthy volunteers participated in a single-blind study comprising an evening (baseline) session, followed by a treatment administration (ethanol 1.4 g/kg or placebo), and a morning session. Memory was tested with a word-learning test (including immediate and delayed recall, and recognition). Further, a 45-min Mackworth clock test for measuring vigilance was included (parameters: number of hits and false alarms) and subjective alertness was assessed, to infer whether word-learning test findings reflect sedation or specific memory impairments. Delayed recall in the morning session was significantly worse in the alcohol group when compared to the placebo group (F(1,42)=6.0, p<0.02). In contrast, immediate recall and recognition were unimpaired in the alcohol group. In the morning session, relative to the placebo group, subjective alertness was significantly reduced in the alcohol group before and after the tests (F(1,44)=8.7, p<0.005; F(1,44)=13.3, p&<0.001, respectively). However, in the Mackworth clock test, the alcohol group and placebo group did not differ significantly in the morning session. The specific findings of impaired delayed recall show that memory retrieval processes are significantly impaired during alcohol hangover. Vigilance performance was not significantly affected, indicating that this memory impairment does not reflect sedation.

Acute and subchronic effects of levocetirizine and diphenhydramine on memory functioning, psychomotor performance, and mood.

BACKGROUND: Central nervous system adverse effects, such as sedation, often accompany the use of first-generation antihistamines. These effects might interfere with memory functioning and psychomotor performance. Levocetirizine was recently introduced as a new antihistamine said to be free from sedative effects. OBJECTIVE: We sought to investigate the effects of levocetirizine (5 mg), diphenhydramine (50 mg), and placebo on memory and psychomotor performance after acute (day 1) and subchronic (day 4) daily administration in 48 healthy volunteers (24 men and 24 women). METHODS: This study was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial. Treatments were administrated on days 1, 2, 3, and 4, 3 hours before the start of the laboratory test battery (performed on days 1 and 4), comprising a word-learning test, the Sternberg Memory Scanning Test, a tracking test (easy and hard version), and a divided attention test (tracking and memory scanning simultaneously). Statistical analyses were performed separately for days 1 and 4 by using analysis of variance. RESULTS: On day 1, diphenhydramine significantly impaired tracking performance (easy: F(1,90) = 25.9, P <.0001; hard: F(1,90) = 20.5, P <.0001) and divided attention (tracking: F(1,90) = 23.8, P <.0001; memory scanning: F(1,90) = 22.0, P <.0001). Results on word-learning tests and Sternberg Memory Scanning Tests were not significantly impaired. On day 4, the effects of diphenhydramine did not reach significance. In contrast, on both days 1 and 4, levocetirizine did not significantly impair laboratory test performance. CONCLUSION: The results show that memory, attention, and tracking performance are unaffected after acute and subchronic administration of levocetirizine (5 mg), whereas diphenhydramine (50 mg) significantly affected divided attention and tracking after acute administration.