Driving Under the Influence of Cannabis: Impact of Combining Toxicology Testing with Field Sobriety Tests

The relationship between clinical impairment and blood drug concentration: Comparison between the most prevalent traffic relevant drug groups

AIM

The aim of the present study was to investigate the relationship between blood concentrations of four different drug classes; ethanol, benzodiazepines, amphetamines and tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and driver impairment as assessed by a clinical test of impairment (CTI).

METHODS

Data was retrieved from a national database on CTI assessments and accompanying blood drug concentrations from apprehended drivers. All drug concentrations in blood were quantified using Liquid Chromatography Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS/MS), and compared to the results of the CTI which were categorized as either "not impaired", "mildly impaired", "moderately impaired", or "considerably impaired".

RESULTS

A total number of 15 514 individual mono drug-cases collected over 9 years was included. 89 % were men and the median age was 34 years. In addition, 3 684 individual cases with similar age and gender distribution where no drugs were detected, were included as a reference group. For ethanol and benzodiazepines the percentage of clinically impaired cases increased markedly from lower to higher concentration windows, from 60 % to 97 % for ethanol and from 38 % to 76 % for benzodiazepines. The corresponding increase for amphetamines and THC was modest, from 43 % to 58 % for amphetamines and from 41 % to 55 % for THC. The correlation between drug concentration and degree of impairment was high for ethanol (Spearman´s rho=0.548, p<0.001) and relatively high for benzodiazepines (Spearman´s rho=0.377, p<0.001), but low for amphetamines (Spearman´s rho=0.078, p<0.001) and THC (Spearman´s rho=0.100, p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

The percentage of impaired drivers increased with increasing blood drug concentration for all four drug classes, most pronounced for ethanol and benzodiazepines and much less for amphetamines and THC. The median blood drug concentration increased with increasing magnitude of impairment for ethanol and benzodiazepines, while this was much less pronounced for amphetamines and THC. The ranges of drug concentrations, however, were wide for all four drug classes in all impairment categories as assessed by individual clinical examination.

Cannabinoids detected in exhaled breath condensate after cannabis use

Cannabinoids can be detected in breath after cannabis use, but different breath matrices need to be explored as studies to date with filter-based devices that collect breath aerosols have not demonstrated that breath-based measurements can reliably identify recent cannabis use. Exhaled breath condensate (EBC) is an unexplored aqueous breath matrix that contains condensed volatile compounds and water vapor in addition to aerosols. EBC was collected from participants both before and at two time points (0.7 ± 0.2 h and 1.7 ± 0.3 h) after observed cannabis use. Eleven different cannabinoids were monitored with liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry. Five different cannabinoids, including Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), were detected in EBC collected from cannabis users. THC was detected in some EBC samples before cannabis use, despite the requested abstinence period. THC was detected in all EBC samples collected at 0.7 h post use and decreased for all participants at 1.7 h. Non-THC cannabinoids were only detected after cannabis use. THC concentrations in EBC samples collected at 0.7 h showed no trend with sample metrics like mass or number of breaths. EBC sampling devices deserve further investigation with respect to modes of cannabis use (e.g, edibles), post use time points, and optimization of cannabinoid recovery.

Complexity of Translating Analytics to Recent Cannabis Use and Impairment

While current analytical methodologies can readily identify cannabis use, definitively establishing recent use within the impairment window has proven to be far more complex, requiring a new approach. Recent studies have shown no direct relationship between impairment and Δ9-tetra-hydrocannabinol (Δ9-THC) concentrations in blood or saliva, making legal "per se" Δ9-THC limits scientifically unjustified. Current methods that focus on Δ9-THC and/or metabolite concentrations in blood, saliva, urine, or exhaled breath can lead to false-positive results for recent use due to the persistence of Δ9-THC well outside of the typical 3-4 h window of potential impairment following cannabis inhalation. There is also the issue of impairment due to other intoxicating substances-just because a subject exhibits signs of impairment and cannabis use is detected does not rule out the involvement of other drugs. Compounding the matter is the increasing popularity of hemp-derived cannabidiol (CBD) products following passage of the 2018 Farm Bill, which legalized industrial hemp in the United States. Many of these products contain varying levels of Δ9-THC, which can lead to false-positive tests for cannabis use. Furthermore, hemp-derived CBD is used to synthesize Δ8-THC, which possesses psychoactive properties similar to Δ9-THC and is surrounded by legal controversy. For accuracy, analytical methods must be able to distinguish the various THC isomers, which have identical masses and exhibit immunological cross-reactivity. A new testing approach has been developed based on exhaled breath and blood sampling that incorporates kinetic changes and the presence of key cannabinoids to detect recent cannabis use within the impairment window without the false-positive results seen with other methods. The complexity of determining recent cannabis use that may lead to impairment demands such a comprehensive method so that irresponsible users can be accurately detected without falsely accusing responsible users who may unjustly suffer harsh, life-changing consequences.

Bibliometric Analysis of Cannabis sativa Research: Trends, Challenges, and Future Directions

Introduction: The use of medical Cannabis remains unregulated in several countries due to the scarcity of clinical studies with high scientific evidence that establish safety and efficacy of Cannabis products. This study aimed to comprehensively analyze how knowledge has been created in this field, as well as perform a bibliographic mapping to identify knowledge gaps, and investigate key authors and journals that have significantly contributed to advancing our understanding of Cannabis. Method: The study protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Review (CRD42020223084). A systematic search was conducted in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Lilacs, Google Scholar, PubMed, SciELO, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. The bibliographic analysis and mapping were registered using the VOSviewer, Sci2tool, CiteSpace, and PoP software. Results: The systematic search identified 27,597 records, with 17,020 duplicates, resulting in a total of 10,577 articles included. The authors who published the most were Marilyn Ann Huestis (n=108) and Sagnik Bhattacharyya (n=71), while Elisaldo A. Carlini and Raphael Mechoulam published 8 and 22 articles, respectively. The journals Drug and Alcohol Dependence (n=297), Psychopharmacology (n=159) and Addictive Behaviors (n=150) were the ones that published the most on Cannabis. The journals suggest that the articles are correlated with the adverse and toxicological effects of recreational Cannabis use; however, most articles focus on medical Cannabis. The peak of publications was in 2021 (n=1,481). The countries that published the most were the United States (n=9,735), while Brazil occupied the 11th position (n=422). Most publications were carried out in "Pharmacology and Pharmacy" (11.31%), followed by "Psychiatry" (7.66%) and "Medicine" (5.80%). The areas of "Neurosciences" (1.59%), "Biochemistry," "Genetics," and "Molecular Biology" (0.79%) were little explored. Conclusion: This study captured the characteristics of publications about Cannabis and clinical studies in the scientific literature, yielding >10,000 articles, representing a large literature review, to date. Therefore, the most productive countries included the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada, while the most productive authors were Marilyn Ann Huestis and Sagnik Bhattacharyya, with a peak of publications in 2021. Finally, the most chosen journals were Drug and Alcohol Dependence and Psychopharmacology.

An analytical approach for on-site analysis of breath samples for Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)

Increased acceptance of cannabis containing the psychoactive component, Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), raises concerns about the potential for impaired drivers and increased highway accidents. In contrast to the "breathalyzer" test, which is generally accepted for determining the alcohol level in a driver, there is no currently accepted roadside test for THC in a motorist. There is a need for an easily collectible biological sample from a potentially impaired driver coupled with an accurate on-site test to measure the presence and quantity of THC in a driver. A novel breath collection device is described, which includes three separate sample collectors for collecting identical A, B, and C breath samples from a subject. A simple one-step ethanol extraction of the "A" breath collector sample can be analyzed by UHPLC/selected ion monitoring (SIM) liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry (LC/MS) to provide qualitative and quantitative determination of THC in breath sample in less than 4 min for samples collected up to 6 h after smoking a cannabis cigarette. SIM LC/MS bioanalyses employed d3-THC as the stable isotope internal standard fortified in negative control breath samples for quantitation including replicates of six calibrator standards and three quality control (QC) samples. Subsequent confirmation of the same breath sample in the B collectors was then confirmed by a reference lab by LC/MS/MS analysis. Fit-for-purpose bioanalytical validation consistent with pharmaceutical regulated bioanalyses produced pharmacokinetic (PK) curves for the two volunteer cannabis smokers. These results produced PK curves, which showed a rapid increase of THC in the breath of the subjects in the first hour followed by reduced THC levels in the later time points. A simpler single-point calibration curve procedure with calibrators and QC prepared in ethanol provided similar results. Limitations to this approach include the higher cost and operator skill sets for the instrumentation employed and the inability to actually determine driver impairment.

Trends in drivers testing positive for drugs of abuse in oral fluid from 2018 to 2021 in France

BACKGROUND

Driving under the influence of drugs (DUID) is a risk factor for traffic accidents. The testing of oral fluid by roadside immunochromatography and laboratory-confirmed chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) analysis to detect drug abuse has increased in France. The aim of this study was to describe the trends observed in drivers testing positive for illicit drugs in oral fluid and to investigate the concordance between the two analytical methods used.

METHODS

We received for confirmation 3051 oral fluid samples from drivers who had tested positive at the roadside with a Drugwipe-5S® device between 2018 and 2021 around Grenoble, France. Samples were collected with FLOQSwab® and analyzed by LC-MS/MS (THC, amphetamine, methamphetamine, MDMA and MDA, MDEA, cocaine and benzoylecgonine, morphine and 6-monoacetylmorphine) at Grenoble Alpes University Hospital, France. Binomial logistic regression was performed to evaluate consumption trends.

RESULTS

Most of the drivers were men (93.2%), with a median age of 26 years (range: 14-66 years). Cannabis (94.6%) cocaine (17.5%) and MDMA (2.5%) were the drugs most frequently detected. Poly-drug use was observed in 17.3% of drivers and involved cannabis and cocaine in 85.3% of these drivers. Poly-drug use was more frequent among drivers over the age of 32 years (OR, 3.48; 95% CI, 2.59-4.68; p ≤ .001), as was cocaine use (OR, 5.15; 95% CI, 3.75-7.08; p ≤ .001). The frequency of positive tests for amphetamines was higher in women than in men (OR, 2.53; 95% CI, 1.50-4.27; p ≤ .001). The positive predictive value of Drugwipe-5S was 98.2% for cannabis, 22.6% for amphetamines, 75.4% for cocaine and 17.3% for opiates. At least one discrepancy between Drugwipe-5S® and LC-MS/MS results was observed for 22.3% of the samples tested.

CONCLUSION

We report recent trends for drivers testing positive for illicit drugs in oral fluid in France. Cannabis was the most prevalent drug of abuse identified, suggesting that a general prevention program might be useful. Our results also highlight the need for LC-MS/MS confirmation when screening oral fluid for drugs of abuse.

Evaluation of Field Sobriety Tests for Identifying Drivers Under the Influence of Cannabis: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

With increasing medicinal and recreational cannabis legalization, there is a public health need for effective and unbiased evaluations for determining whether a driver is impaired due to Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) exposure. Field sobriety tests (FSTs) are a key component of the gold standard law enforcement officer-based evaluations, yet controlled studies are inconclusive regarding their efficacy in detecting whether a person is under the influence of THC.

Objective

To examine the classification accuracy of FSTs with respect to cannabis exposure and driving impairment (as determined via a driving simulation).

Design, Setting, and Participants

This double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel randomized clinical trial was conducted from February 2017 to June 2019 at the Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research, University of California, San Diego. Participants were aged 21 to 55 years and had used cannabis in the past month. Data were analyzed from August 2021 to April 2023.

Intervention

Participants were randomized 1:1:1 to placebo (0.02% THC), 5.9% THC cannabis, or 13.4% THC cannabis smoked ad libitum.

Main Outcome and Measures

The primary end point was law enforcement officer determination of FST impairment at 4 time points after smoking. Additional measures included officer estimation as to whether participants were in the THC or placebo group as well as driving simulator data. Officers did not observe driving performance.

Results

The study included 184 participants (117 [63.6%] male; mean [SD] age, 30 [8.3] years) who had used cannabis a mean (SD) of 16.7 (9.8) days in the past 30 days; 121 received THC and 63, placebo. Officers classified 98 participants (81.0%) in the THC group and 31 (49.2%) in the placebo group as FST impaired (difference, 31.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 16.4-47.2 percentage points; P < .001) at 70 minutes after smoking. The THC group performed significantly worse than the placebo group on 8 of 27 individual FST components (29.6%) and all FST summary scores. However, the placebo group did not complete a median of 8 (IQR, 5-11) FST components as instructed. Of 128 participants classified as FST impaired, officers suspected 127 (99.2%) as having received THC. Driving simulator performance was significantly associated with results of select FSTs (eg, ≥2 clues on One Leg Stand was associated with impairment on the simulator: odds ratio, 3.09; 95% CI, 1.63-5.88; P < .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

This randomized clinical trial found that when administered by highly trained officers, FSTs differentiated between individuals receiving THC vs placebo and driving abilities were associated with results of some FSTs. However, the high rate at which the participants receiving placebo failed to adequately perform FSTs and the high frequency that poor FST performance was suspected to be due to THC-related impairment suggest that FSTs, absent other indicators, may be insufficient to denote THC-specific impairment in drivers.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02849587.