Prescription drugs, drugged driving and per se laws

Design, development, and evaluation of a multi-lingual web-based database for informing people regarding driving-impairing medicines

OBJECTIVE

Driving under the influence of drugs (DUID) is a growing traffic safety problem in many countries. It is estimated that 5 to 10% of medicinal drugs may impair driving due to their side effects. Despite the high number of medicinal drugs prescribed in Iran, there is a lack of a database that could provide specialized information regarding medicinal drugs and driving. Therefore, the present study aimed to design, develop, and evaluate a database for informing the general public, drivers, and healthcare providers regarding driving-impairing medicines.

METHODS

The Drugs-and-traffic-safety (DATS) database, which has been developed by Road Traffic Injury Research Center (RTIRC), was designed using Java, HTML, JavaScript and MySql database. After completing the testing process, pharmaceutical data (i.e., generic and brand names, route of administration, anatomical classification, etc.), the level of influence of medicinal drugs on driving, and driving-related recommendations based on the level of influence for consumers were entered into the database. A cross-sectional study, and a qualitative study as semi-structured interviews and expert panels were conducted in different target groups to evaluate the DATS. Finally, the evaluation results were used to improve the database. The quantitative and qualitative data were analyzed using SPSS 25.0 and MAXQDA-10, respectively.

RESULTS

The DATS was the only web-based database that could be accessed online via different browsers. The database included information about 1,255 medicinal drugs, and their influence on driving was shown with four colors, i.e., green (insignificant or no effect), yellow (mild effect), orange (moderate effect), and red (severe effect). The database was designed in multiple languages, which could enable users to search for medicinal drug names in both Persian and English. Based on the quantitative results, the mean score of the DATS was 75.10 ± 16.01 (out of 100) from the public viewpoint, indicating that the users were relatively satisfied with the database. Some themes and subthemes were extracted from the qualitative section of the study which revealed the users found DATS a practical, useful, and user-friendly tool.

CONCLUSION

Considering the positive feedback of users about DATS in the quantitative and qualitative evaluations, implementing DATS in Iran could provide useful advice in terms of the influence of medicinal drugs on driving to the public and traffic users. Therefore, it can raise public awareness of the risk of driving under the influence of medicinal drugs.

A descriptive analysis of drivers under the influence of opioids in Kentucky

Despite the ongoing opioid epidemic and evidence of the increasing prevalence of driving under the influence of opioids, particularly in rural communities, there remains a limited understanding of those who drive under the influence of opioids. The current study aims to fill this gap in the literature by examining drivers under the influence of opioids (DUIOs) using the clinical substance use assessment records of a statewide sample of drivers convicted of driving under the influence (N = 15,917); first identifying differences between DUIOs and drivers under the influence of other, non-opioid substances, followed by an examination of factors associated with driving under the influence of opioids in combination with other substances, and finally, comparing rural and urban DUIOs (N = 1,571). Bivariate analyses were used to compare groups, while a logistic regression model was used to identify correlates of other substance involvement. DUIOs differed from drivers under the influence of other, non-opioid substances, such as being more likely to be convicted in a rural community (65.7% vs 53.6%) and to be under the influence of multiple substances at the time of arrest (42.0% vs 7.1%). Among DUIOs, a rural conviction (p =.016) and meeting DSM criteria for an alcohol (p <.001) and drug use disorder (p <.001) were positively associated with driving under the influence of opioids in combination with other substances. Results also highlighted a number of differences between rural and urban DUIOs, including other substance involvement. Urban DUIOs were more likely to report alcohol involvement in their DUI arrest (16.7% vs 9.1%), and rural DUIOs were more likely to report other, non-opioid drug involvement (36.9% vs 29.1%). Results suggest a possible need for different prevention and treatment approaches depending on rural/urban environment, which is noteworthy given limited treatment availability and other barriers to substance use treatment in rural communities.

Effect of anxiolytic drug silexan on sleep - a narrative review

OBJECTIVES

Silexan is an orally administered, proprietary essential oil from Lavandula angustifolia with significant anxiolytic and sleep improving properties. Here we present a narrative review that provides an overview of the available evidence of the effects of silexan on sleep.

METHODS

We start with a summary of the pharmacological background and continue with presenting sleep-related results from controlled clinical trials with silexan. Then we report on a meta-analysis of item 'insomnia' from the Hamilton Anxiety Scale, which includes data from all randomised, placebo-controlled clinical trials with silexan in which the scale was administered. Finally, we summarise the results of a mediation analysis that was performed to elucidate the pathway of the effect of silexan on sleep.

RESULTS

In randomised, placebo-controlled trials in patients suffering from anxiety disorders silexan had a significant anxiolytic effect and improved sleep along with recovery from anxiety. Mediation analysis demonstrates that more than 98% of the effect of silexan on sleep was mediated by its anxiolytic effect while the direct effect on sleep was marginal.

CONCLUSIONS

Silexan improves sleep as a result of its anxiolytic effect.

Factors influencing changes in medication-taking and driving behavior after warnings about prescription medications that prohibit driving: an online survey

Background

This study examined warning messages as a strategy for preventing automobile crashes by drivers on medications. We investigated the degree of awareness regarding the effects of medication on automobile driving and changes in medication-taking and driving behavior. We also assessed associations between socio-environmental factors and the driving and medication-taking behavior adopted by individuals after being warned about driving-related risks.

Methods

Responses to an online questionnaire from 1200 people with a driving license who were taking prescription medications at the time of inquiry (March 2019) were collected and analyzed. The items surveyed were sex, age, educational history, health literacy, current medications, and medication-taking and driving behavior after being warned.

Results

Of the total respondents, 30% were taking medicine that prohibited driving. Of those taking prohibited medications, 25.7% did not receive a warning about driving from healthcare professionals. Most respondents taking prohibited medications received euphemistic warnings, such as “practice caution” (30%), “refrain from calling attention” (29.4%), and “avoid driving” (19.8%); 16% of the direct warnings were about not driving. Medication’s effects on driving were recognized by 80% of the total respondents. The degree of awareness was significantly higher among respondents taking medications that prohibit driving than among those taking medications that did not prohibit driving or those taking unknown medications. Awareness of medicine’s influence on driving was associated with health literacy. No association was found between age, gender, health literacy, history of side effects, and driving and medication-taking behavior. Approximately 22% of respondents adjusted their medication use at their discretion and 39% maintained treatment compliance but continued driving. Among respondents taking medications that prohibit driving, whether driving was required for work was a significant factor in their driving and medication-taking behavior after being warned.

Conclusions

Healthcare professionals do not always fully inform patients about the driving-related risks of medications. To encourage patients who are taking medications that have a significant impact on their driving to either stop driving or consult a healthcare professional, healthcare professionals must first understand the patient’s social environment, such as whether driving is required for work, and then create an environment conducive to advice-seeking.

Silexan does not affect driving performance after single and multiple dose applications: Results from a double-blind, placebo and reference-controlled study in healthy volunteers

Anxiolytic drugs often have sedative effects that impair the ability to drive. Our double-blind, randomized crossover trial investigated the effect of Silexan, a non-sedating, anxiolytic herbal medicinal product, on driving performance in healthy volunteers. Part 1 aimed at demonstrating equivalence between 80 mg/d Silexan and placebo. Part 2 was performed to demonstrate superiority of 160 and 320 mg Silexan over 1 mg lorazepam and included a placebo arm for assay sensitivity. Driving performance was assessed in a validated, alcohol-calibrated simulator test. The primary outcome was the standard deviation of the lane position (SDLP). Secondary outcomes included driving errors and sleepiness. Fifty and 25 subjects were randomized in Parts 1 and 2, respectively. In Part 1, Silexan 80 mg was confirmed to be equivalent to placebo after single administration (equivalence range: δ = ±2 cm). The 95% confidence interval (CI) for the SDLP marginal mean value difference Silexan-placebo for single administration was -1.43; +1.38 and thus similar to the 95% CI of -1.45; +0.79 cm for 7 days' multiple dosing. In Part 2, 95% CIs for SDLP marginal mean value differences to lorazepam were -8.58; -5.42 cm for Silexan 160 mg and -8.65; -5.45 cm for 320 mg (p < 0.001). Confirmatory results were supported by secondary outcomes, where results for Silexan were comparable to placebo and more favorable than for lorazepam. The study demonstrates that single doses of up to 320 mg Silexan and multiple doses of 80 mg/d have no adverse effect on driving performance.

The Prevention of Drugged Driving: Needs, Barriers, and Self-Efficacy of Prevention Professionals

Driving under the influence of drugs (e.g., marijuana, prescription medications) is a major public health and safety concern. As a relatively understudied and growing problem, prevention strategies that address it are not as clear, well-tested, or evidence-based as those developed for preventing other risky behaviors such as drunk driving. Key components of a successful prevention of this harmful behavior are the efforts of practitioners working in the areas of substance abuse prevention and highway safety for whom drugged driving is likely a part, but not the sole focus, of their job. We surveyed 238 prevention professionals working in substance abuse prevention and highway safety from 46 states to understand their needs, barriers, and self-efficacy to prevent drugged driving in their communities. Most respondents reported needing training and resources to implement strategies related to drugged driving, particularly with regard to engaging youth and parents, if they are to address this problem effectively. The majority of respondents also reported low levels of self-efficacy for implementing a wide range of drugged driving prevention strategies. Our findings reveal that the professionals we need to feel prepared and efficacious to prevent drugged driving have generally low feelings of confidence in their ability to do so.

Characteristics of Prescription-Opioid-Impaired and Other Substance-Impaired Drivers in Rural Appalachian Kentucky

Previous studies have highlighted the prescription opioid epidemic in rural Appalachia and its associated risk behaviors; however, no studies have examined prescription-opioid-impaired driving as a consequence of this epidemic. The purpose of the present study was to describe prescription-opioid-impaired drivers in rural Appalachian Kentucky and examine how they are similar to and different from other substance-impaired drivers from the region. A sample of convicted DUI offenders from rural Appalachian Kentucky completed a confidential research interview focused on their substance use, mental health, and criminal activity. Prescription-opioid-impaired drivers (n = 33) were compared to other drug-impaired drivers (n = 29) and to alcohol-only-impaired drivers (n = 44). Overall, prescription-opioid-impaired drivers had a similar prevalence of illicit substance use and criminal activity, including impaired driving frequency, to other drug-impaired drivers, but had a higher prevalence of illicit substance use and more frequent impaired driving when compared to alcohol-only-impaired drivers. Study implications include the importance of comprehensive substance abuse assessment and treatment for DUI offenders and the need for tailored interventions for prescription-opioid-impaired and other drug-impaired drivers.

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.

Drug use and fatal motor vehicle crashes: a case-control study

Drugged driving is a serious safety concern, but its role in motor vehicle crashes has not been adequately studied. Using a case-control design, the authors assessed the association between drug use and fatal crash risk. Cases (n=737) were drivers who were involved in fatal motor vehicle crashes in the continental United States during specific time periods in 2007, and controls (n=7719) were participants of the 2007 National Roadside Survey of Alcohol and Drug Use by Drivers. Overall, 31.9% of the cases and 13.7% of the controls tested positive for at least one non-alcohol drug. The estimated odds ratios of fatal crash involvement associated with specific drug categories were 1.83 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.39, 2.39] for marijuana, 3.03 (95% CI: 2.00, 4.48) for narcotics, 3.57 (95% CI: 2.63, 4.76) for stimulants, and 4.83 (95% CI: 3.18, 7.21) for depressants. Drivers who tested positive for both alcohol and drugs were at substantially heightened risk relative to those using neither alcohol nor drugs (Odds Ratio=23.24; 95% CI: 17.79, 30.28). These results indicate that drug use is associated with a significantly increased risk of fatal crash involvement, particularly when used in combination with alcohol.

Drinking drivers and drug use on weekend nights in the United States

BACKGROUND

Studies of drinking drivers in alcohol-related crashes have shown that high breath-alcohol concentrations (BrACs) are associated with illegal drug use. Until the 2007 National Roadside Survey (NRS), the prevalence of drugs among drinking drivers on U.S. roads was unknown. Using NRS data, we explore how many drivers with positive BrACs may also be using drugs and their significance to current drinking-driving enforcement procedures.

METHODS

Based on a stratified, random sample covering the 48 U.S. contiguous states, we conducted surveys on weekend nights from July-November 2007. Of the 8384 eligible motorists contacted, 85.4% provided a breath sample; 70.0%, an oral fluid sample; and 39.1%, a blood sample. We conducted regression analyses on 5912 participants with a breath test and an oral fluid or blood test. The dependent variables of interest were illegal drugs (cocaine, cannabinoids, street drugs, street amphetamines, and opiates) and medicinal drugs (prescription and over-the-counter).

RESULTS

10.5% of nondrinking drivers were using illegal drugs, and 26 to 33% of drivers with illegal BrACs (≥ 0.08 g/dL) were using illegal drugs. Medicinal drug use was more common among nondrinking drivers (4.0%) than among drivers with illegal BrACs (2.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

The significant relationship between an illegal BrAC and the prevalence of an illegal drug suggests as many as 350,000 illegal drug-using drivers are arrested each year for DWI by U.S. alcohol-impaired driving enforcement. These drug-using drivers need to be identified and appropriate sanctions/treatment programs implemented for them in efforts to extend per se laws to unapprehended drug users.