Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Driving Ability (driving + ability)
Selected AbstractsImpairment due to cannabis and ethanol: clinical signs and additive effectsADDICTION, Issue 6 2010Jørgen G. Bramness ABSTRACT Aims Studies have shown that the impairing effects of ,-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) are dose-related. Cannabis intake increases the risk of traffic accidents. The purpose of this study was to see how different clinical tests and observations were related to blood THC concentrations and to determine whether the combined influence of THC and ethanol was different from either drug alone. Design A retrospective cross-sectional forensic database study. Setting Drivers apprehended by the police suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol other drugs. Participants We investigated 589 cases positive for THC only. In addition, 894 cases with THC and ethanol were included. A comparison was made with 3480 drivers with only ethanol in their blood and 79 drivers who tested negative. Measurements Data were analytical results of blood samples and the 27 clinical tests and observations included in the Norwegian clinical test for impairment (CTI). Findings No relationship was found between blood THC concentration and most of the CTI tests. Blood THC concentration was, however, related to conjunctival injection, pupil dilation and reaction to light and to the overall risk of being judged impaired. When THC and ethanol were detected together the risk of being judged impaired was increased markedly. Conclusions This study demonstrates that cannabis impairs driving ability in a concentration-related manner. The effect is smaller than for ethanol. The effect of ethanol and cannabis taken simultaneously is additive. Conjunctival injection, dilated pupils and slow pupil reaction are among the few signs to reveal THC influence. [source] Next-day cognition, psychomotor function, and driving-related skills following nighttime administration of eszopicloneHUMAN PSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY: CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL, Issue 5 2008Julia Boyle Abstract Objective To evaluate next-day driving ability, as assessed by brake reaction time (BRT), and cognitive/psychomotor function following nighttime administration of 3,mg eszopiclone. Methods Two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over studies were performed in healthy volunteers (n,=,32) and patients with primary insomnia (n,=,32). Study participants received nighttime dosing of 3,mg eszopiclone or placebo. BRT and a psychometric test battery were used to assess the next-day effects of eszopiclone treatment. Results In both studies, driving ability and measures of cognitive and psychomotor function were not impaired the morning after eszopiclone, as compared to placebo. All eszopiclone subjects reported improved ease in getting to sleep and quality of sleep with no significant changes in behavior upon awakening. A significant increase in next-day feelings of sedation was reported in healthy volunteers, but not in patients with primary insomnia, following eszopiclone treatment relative to placebo. Sleep induction, maintenance, duration, and efficiency, as assessed by PSG, were significantly improved following eszopiclone treatment in patients with insomnia. Conclusions Nighttime administration of 3,mg eszopiclone improved objective and subjective sleep measures in patients with insomnia (and subjective sleep measures in healthy patients) and did not impair next-day driving-related skills or measures of cognition in either study population relative to placebo. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source] Lack of effects between rupatadine 10,mg and placebo on actual driving performance of healthy volunteersHUMAN PSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY: CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL, Issue 5 2007Eric Vuurman Abstract Introduction Rupatadine fumarate is a potent, selective, histamine H1 -receptor antagonist and PAF inhibitor with demonstrated efficacy for the relief of allergic rhinitis. Rupatadine does not easily cross the blood,brain barrier and is believed to be non-sedating at therapeutic doses. Consequently, rupatadine should show no impairment on car driving. Objective This study compared the acute effects of rupatadine, relative to placebo and hydroxyzine (as an active control), on healthy subjects' driving performance. Methods Twenty subjects received a single dose of rupatadine 10,mg, hydroxyzine 50,mg, or placebo in each period of this randomized, double-blind, three-way crossover study. Two hours postdosing, subjects operated a specially instrumented vehicle in tests designed to measure their driving ability. Before and after the driving tests ratings of sedation were recorded. Results There was no significant difference between rupatadine and placebo in the primary outcome variable: standard deviation of lateral position (SDLP); however, hydroxyzine treatment significantly increased SDLP (p,<,0.001 for both comparisons). Objective (Stanford sleepiness scale) and subjective sedation ratings (Visual Analogue Scales) showed similar results: subjects reported negative effects after hydroxyzine but not after rupatadine. Conclusion Rupatadine 10,mg is not sedating and does not impair driving performance. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source] Effects of Alzheimer's disease and mild cognitive impairment on driving ability: a controlled clinical study by simulated driving testINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GERIATRIC PSYCHIATRY, Issue 3 2009Cristina Frittelli Abstract Objective To assess the effects of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) on simulated car driving ability. Methods Twenty patients with a probable AD of mild severity (Clinical Dementia Rating, CDR,=,1) were compared with 20 subjects with MCI (CD,=,0.5), and a group of age-matched neurologically normal controls on a driving simulation task. Measures of driving competence included the length of run, the number of infractions (omission of stop at pedestrian crossings, speed limits violation), the number of stops at traffic lights, the mean time to collision, and the number of off-road events. Results in the driving competence measures were correlated with scores obtained from simple visual reaction times and mini-mental state examination (MMSE). Results The patients with mild AD performed significantly worse than MCI subjects and controls on three simulated driving measures, length of run and mean time to collision (p,<,0.001), and number of off-road events (p,<,0.01). MCI subjects had only a significantly shorter time-to-collision than healthy controls (p,<,0.001). Simple visual reaction times were significantly longer (p,<,0.001) in patients with AD, compared to MCI and healthy controls, and showed a borderline significant relation (p,=,0.05) with simulated driving scores. Driving performance in the three groups did not significantly correlate with MMSE score as measure of overall cognitive function. Conclusions Mild AD significantly impaired simulated driving fitness, while MCI limitedly affected driving performance. Unsafe driving behaviour in AD patients was not predicted by MMSE scores. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source] Hearing Impairment Affects Older People's Ability to Drive in the Presence of DistractersJOURNAL OF AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETY, Issue 6 2010Louise Hickson PhD OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effects of hearing impairment and distractibility on older people's driving ability, assessed under real-world conditions. DESIGN: Experimental cross-sectional study. SETTING: University laboratory setting and an on-road driving test. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred seven community-living adults aged 62 to 88. Fifty-five percent had normal hearing, 26% had a mild hearing impairment, and 19% had a moderate or greater impairment. MEASUREMENTS: Hearing was assessed using objective impairment measures (pure-tone audiometry, speech perception testing) and a self-report measure (Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly). Driving was assessed on a closed road circuit under three conditions: no distracters, auditory distracters, and visual distracters. RESULTS: There was a significant interaction between hearing impairment and distracters, such that people with moderate to severe hearing impairment had significantly poorer driving performance in the presence of distracters than those with normal or mild hearing impairment. CONCLUSION: Older adults with poor hearing have greater difficulty with driving in the presence of distracters than older adults with good hearing. [source] | ||||||||||