Impairment due to alcohol, tetrahydrocannabinol, and benzodiazepines in impaired drivers compared to experimental studies.

OBJECTIVE: In some countries, per se laws for other drugs than alcohol are used to judge drunk and drugged drivers. These blood concentration limits are often derived from experimental studies on traffic relevant behavior of healthy volunteers. Knowledge about how results from experimental studies could be transferred to a real-life setting is missing. The aim of this study was to compare impairment seen in experimental studies to the impairment seen at equivalent concentrations in apprehended drunk and drugged drivers. METHODS: Results from previously performed meta-analyses of experimental studies regarding impairment from alcohol, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), and benzodiazepines were compared to impairment in apprehended drunk and drugged drivers as judged by a clinical test of impairment. Both experimental studies and real-life cases were divided into 4 groups according to increasing blood drug concentration intervals. The percentage of impaired test results in experimental studies was compared to the percentage of impaired subjects among drivers within the same blood drug concentration window. RESULTS: For ethanol, the percentage of impaired drivers (n = 1,223) increased from 59% in the lowest drug concentration group to 95% in the highest drug concentration group, compared to 7 and 72% in the respective groups in experimental studies. For THC, the percentage of impaired drivers (n = 950) increased from 42 to 58%, the corresponding numbers being 11 and 42% for experimental studies. For benzodiazepines, the percentage of impaired drivers (n = 245) increased from 46 to 76%, the corresponding numbers being 16 and 60% for experimental studies. The increased odds ratio for impairment between 2 concentration groups was comparable for experimental studies and impaired drivers. CONCLUSIONS: Fewer test results indicated impairment in experimental studies compared to impaired drivers in real life when influenced by similar blood concentrations of either ethanol, THC, or benzodiazepines. In addition, a comparable relationship between drug concentration and impairment was seen for both experimental studies and real-life cases. We believe that the present study strengthens the background for using experimental studies to establish fixed concentration limits for drunk and drugged drivers, but experimental studies in an impaired driver population could further expand our knowledge.

Extended Detection of Amphetamine and Methamphetamine in Oral Fluid.

BACKGROUND: Amphetamine and methamphetamine are popular drugs of abuse worldwide and are important components of drug monitoring programs. Windows of detection for amphetamine and methamphetamine in oral fluid after high doses have not been investigated. Repeated high-dose ingestions are likely to cause positive samples for extended periods. Common routes of administration of amphetamine/methamphetamine in Norway are oral intake or injection. The aim of this study was to investigate windows of detection for amphetamine and methamphetamine in oral fluid from drug addicts under sustained abstinence during detoxification. METHODS: Twenty-five patients admitted to a closed detoxification unit were included in this study. Oral fluid samples were collected daily in the morning and evening, and urine every morning for 10 days. A blood sample was drawn during the first 5 days after admission if the patient consented. Oral fluid results were compared with urine results to determine whether a new ingestion occurred. Oral fluid was collected with the Intercept oral fluid collection device. In-house cutoff concentrations for amphetamine and methamphetamine were 6.8 and 7.5 mcg/L, respectively, in oral fluid, and 135 and 149 mcg/L, respectively, in urine. RESULTS: Amphetamines were detected in 11 oral fluid, 5 urine, and 2 blood specimens from 25 patients. Patients self-reported amphetamines intake of up to 0.5-2 g daily. Windows of detection for amphetamine and methamphetamine in oral fluid were up to 8 days, longer than in urine at the applied cutoff values. CONCLUSIONS: These data confirm that oral fluid is a viable alternative to urine for monitoring amphetamine abuse, and that these substances might be detected in oral fluid for at least 1 week after ingestion of high doses. Such long detection times were, as far as we are aware, never reported previously for oral fluid amphetamines.

Comparison of zopiclone concentrations in oral fluid sampled with Intercept(®) oral specimen collection device and Statsure Saliva Sampler™ and concentrations in blood.

A clinical study of zopiclone was performed using doses of 5 and 10 mg. Samples of oral fluid were collected using the Statsure and Intercept devices, and blood samples were collected simultaneously. Concentrations of zopiclone in samples of oral fluid and blood were determined with liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry, and concentrations in undiluted oral fluid were calculated. The concentrations of zopiclone in oral fluid were generally higher when using the Intercept compared to the Statsure device; the median oral fluid/whole blood concentration ratios were 3.8 (range 1.5-15.9) and 1.9 (range 1.2-4.6), respectively (n = 21). The correlation between zopiclone concentrations in oral fluid collected with the two devices was fairly poor, r(2) = 0.35. The results indicate that the type of sampling device may significantly affect the analytical result for zopiclone in sampled oral fluid.