Prescription opioid use among drivers in British Columbia, 1997–2016

Driving under the influence of opioids in 2024: a narrative review of science and pandemic policy updates

BACKGROUND/IMPORTANCE

Driving under the influence of drugs (DUID) refers to operating a vehicle after consuming drugs or medications other than alcohol that impair the ability to drive safely. There is no consensus on legal limits for drug intoxication while driving in the USA. Balancing the benefits of prescription medications, such as opioids, with traffic safety remains an ongoing public health challenge.

OBJECTIVE

This article examines DUID policy and provides recommendations for policy improvement and unification grounded in scientific evidence on opioid-related impairment and driving risks.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

A literature review of epidemiologic data, psychomotor effects, and public policy related to opioid use and driving was conducted. A total of 38 epidemiological studies, 21 studies on psychomotor effects, and pertinent laws and policies were reviewed.

FINDINGS

Epidemiological data reveal an increasing prevalence of opioid-positive drivers and an association between opioid use and elevated risk of motor vehicle collisions. Psychomotor studies show mixed results, with some indicating impairment in opioid users and others suggesting minimal effects on driving ability. State laws regarding DUID remain heterogeneous, with trends toward expanded testing powers, lower impairment thresholds, and limitations on prescription-based defenses. The lack of standardized opioid testing limits and inconsistent policy approaches across states hinder effective management of opioid-related impaired driving.

CONCLUSIONS

A balanced public health approach can reduce opioid-involved crashes through education, prevention, enhanced enforcement tools, and rehabilitation. In drafting future DUID laws, policymakers must analyze evolving opioid research when balancing the pain relief of opioids with public roadway safety.

Syncope and subsequent traffic crash: A responsibility analysis

BACKGROUND

Physicians are often asked to counsel patients about driving safety after syncope, yet little empirical data guides such advice.

METHODS

We identified a population-based retrospective cohort of 9,507 individuals with a driver license who were discharged from any of six urban emergency departments (EDs) with a diagnosis of 'syncope and collapse'. We examined all police-reported crashes that involved a cohort member as a driver and occurred between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2016. We categorized crash-involved drivers as 'responsible' or 'non-responsible' for their crash using detailed police-reported crash data and a validated responsibility scoring tool. We then used logistic regression to test the hypothesis that recent syncope was associated with driver responsibility for crash.

RESULTS

Over the 7-year study interval, cohort members were involved in 475 police-reported crashes: 210 drivers were deemed responsible and 133 drivers were deemed non-responsible for their crash; the 132 drivers deemed to have indeterminate responsibility were excluded from further analysis. An ED visit for syncope occurred in the three months leading up to crash in 11 crash-responsible drivers and in 5 crash-non-responsible drivers, suggesting that recent syncope was not associated with driver responsibility for crash (adjusted odds ratio, 1.31; 95%CI, 0.40-4.74; p = 0.67). However, all drivers with cardiac syncope were deemed responsible, precluding calculation of an odds ratio for this important subgroup.

CONCLUSIONS

Recent syncope was not significantly associated with driver responsibility for traffic crash. Clinicians and policymakers should consider these results when making fitness-to-drive recommendations after syncope.

Syncope and the Risk of Subsequent Motor Vehicle Crash: A Population-Based Retrospective Cohort Study

IMPORTANCE

Medical driving restrictions are burdensome, yet syncope recurrence while driving can cause a motor vehicle crash (MVC). Few empirical data inform current driving restrictions after syncope.

OBJECTIVE

To examine MVC risk among patients visiting the emergency department (ED) after first-episode syncope.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A population-based, retrospective observational cohort study of MVC risk after first-episode syncope was performed in British Columbia, Canada. Patients visiting any of 6 urban EDs for syncope and collapse were age- and sex-matched to 4 control patients visiting the same ED in the same month for a condition other than syncope. Patients' ED medical records were linked to administrative health records, driving history, and detailed crash reports. Crash-free survival among individuals with syncope was then compared with that among matched control patients. Data analyses were performed from May 2020 to March 2022.

EXPOSURES

Initial ED visit for syncope.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Involvement as a driver in an MVC in the year following the index ED visit. Crashes were identified using insurance claim data and police crash reports.

RESULTS

The study cohort included 43 589 patients (9223 patients with syncope and 34 366 controls; median [IQR] age, 54 [35-72] years; 22 360 [51.3%] women; 5033 [11.5%] rural residents). At baseline, crude MVC incidence rates among both the syncope and control groups were higher than among the general population (12.2, 13.2, and 8.2 crashes per 100 driver-years, respectively). In the year following index ED visit, 846 first crashes occurred in the syncope group and 3457 first crashes occurred in the control group, indicating no significant difference in subsequent MVC risk (9.2% vs 10.1%; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.93; 95% CI, 0.87-1.01; P = .07). Subsequent crash risk among patients with syncope was not significantly increased in the first 30 days after index ED visit (aHR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.84-1.36; P = .56) or among subgroups at higher risk of adverse events after syncope (eg, age >65 years; cardiogenic syncope; Canadian Syncope Risk Score ≥1).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The findings of this population-based retrospective cohort study suggest that patients visiting the ED with first-episode syncope exhibit a subsequent crash risk no different than the average ED patient. More stringent driving restrictions after syncope may not be warranted.