Diabetes and driving: Desired data, research methods and their pitfalls, current knowledge, and future research

Trends in the Use of Driving-Impairing Medicines According to the DRUID Category: A Population-Based Registry Study with Reference to Driving in a Region of Spain between 2015 and 2019

The European DRUID (Drive Under the Influence of drugs, alcohol, and medicines) program classifies medications into three categories according to their effect on one’s fitness to drive. The trend in the use of driving-impairing medicines (DIMs) in a region of Spain between 2015 and 2019 was analyzed through a population-based registry study. Pharmacy dispensing records for DIMs are provided. The use of DIMs on drivers was weighted according to the national driver’s license census. The analysis was performed considering the population distribution by age and sex, treatment length, and the three DRUID categories. DIMs were used by 36.46% of the population and 27.91% of drivers, mainly chronically, with considerable daily use (8.04% and 5.34%, respectively). Use was more common in females than in males (42.28% vs. 30.44%) and increased with age. Among drivers, consumption decreases after 60 years of age for females and after 75 years of age for males. There was a 34% increase in the use of DIMs between 2015 and 2019, with a focus on daily use (>60%). The general population took 2.27 ± 1.76 DIMs, fundamentally category II (moderate influence on fitness to drive) (20.3%) and category III (severe influence on fitness to drive) (19.08%). The use of DIMs by the general population and drivers is significant and has increased in recent years. The integration of the DRUID classification into electronic prescription tools would assist physicians and pharmacists in providing adequate information to the patient about the effects of prescribed medications on their fitness to drive.

Practical aspects of usage of insulin in India: Descriptive review and key recommendations

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Insulin therapy is an integral part of diabetes management. However, reliable and easily accessible information on a number of basic facts concerning insulin therapy, including storage of insulin, managing insulin therapy during travel, nuances of insulin use while driving, and dose adjustments during sick days is lacking. This document aims to make readily available, reliable, and easy to implement information on these essential but relatively less discussed aspects of insulin therapy.

METHOD

Literature search was performed using PubMed and Cochrane Library from inception till 1^st of July 2019. The relevant topics were reviewed by a panel of 5 specialists and 23 contributing physicians and endocrinologists, who had assembled at Bengaluru, India for the 13th National Insulin Summit. After a thorough review of the literature, and following detailed discussions, the committee arrived at these recommendations.

RESULTS

Unopened vials and cartridges of insulin should be stored at 2 °C-8 °C in a refrigerator and protected from direct sunlight. For opened vials and in-use cartridges, manufacturer's instructions must be followed at all times. While traveling by air, dose adjustments are required only when flying across more than five time zones in the east or west directions. Insulin therapy should not be omitted or stopped during an acute illness; rather the doses need careful adjustments based on self-monitoring of blood glucose.

CONCLUSION

Recommendations and guidelines, covering many common aspects of insulin therapy are readily available. This consensus document aims to make recommendations for those essential aspects of insulin therapy that are crucial for its success but are relatively less known and less discussed.

Population-Based Registry Analysis of Antidiabetics Dispensations: Trend Use in Spain between 2015 and 2018 with Reference to Driving

Insulins and some oral antidiabetics are considered to be driving-impairing medicines (DIM) and they belong to the Driving under the Influence of Drugs, alcohol, and medicines (DRUID) category I (minor influence on fitness to drive). The trend of antidiabetics use in Castilla y León from 2015 to 2018 is presented through a population-based registry study. Treatment duration with these medicines and the concomitant use of other DIMs were observed. An adjustment method was used with information from the drivers' license census. For all calculations, age and gender were taken into account. 3.98% of the general population used at least one antidiabetic, as well as 2.92% of drivers. The consumption of antidiabetics in men was higher than in women (4.35% vs. 3.61%, p = 0.001), and the use increases with age, especially from 35-39 years to 75-79 years in men and 85-89 years in women. Antidiabetics were consumed chronically, specifically 100% in the case of insulins and 95% in the case of oral antidiabetics. In addition to antidiabetics, 2.5 ± 1.86 DIMs were consumed, mainly anxiolytics (25.53%), opioids (23.03%), other analgesics and antipiretics (19.13%), and antidepressants (17.73%). Collaboration between pharmacists and physicians is a priority to clearly transmitting risks to patients. It is necessary that the health authorities include information on DIMs, such as the DRUID classification, in the prescription and dispensing software.

Safe driving practices and factors associated with motor-vehicle collisions among people with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus: Results from the Diabetes and Driving (DAD) study

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of people with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) who have discussed issues related to diabetes and driving with their health care providers (HCPs). We also sought to determine the safe driving practices that are currently employed by this group. Finally, we investigated the factors that might increase the risk of motor-vehicle collisions (MVCs) among this group in Saudi Arabia.

METHOD

This cross-sectional study surveyed a representative sample of 429 current male drivers with ITDM using a structured questionnaire in Saudi Arabia.

RESULTS

Most of the participants (76.5%) never discussed topics regarding diabetes and driving with their HCPs. The majority of the participants (61.8%) reported at least never doing one of the following: (a) carrying a blood glucose testing kit while driving, (b) testing their blood glucose level before driving or during a journey, or (c) having thought of a specific threshold of blood glucose level that would preclude driving. Three factors were associated with a higher risk of MVCs among participants with ITDM: (a) being on a basal/boluses regimen, (b) never having a discussion regarding diabetes and driving with their HCPs, and (c) having experienced hypoglycemia during driving.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of people with ITDM had not had a discussion regarding diabetes and driving with their HCPs, which was reflected by a lack of safe driving practices. People with ITDM should be encouraged to take precautions while driving in order to prevent future MVCs.

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS

This research highlights the importance of investing more effort in educating drivers who have diabetes about safe driving practices by their health care providers. Also, it will attracts the attention of policymakers for an urgent need to establish clear policies and procedures for dealing with drivers who have diabetes.

Predicting and Reducing Driving Mishaps Among Drivers With Type 1 Diabetes

OBJECTIVE

Two aims of this study were to develop and validate A) a metric to identify drivers with type 1 diabetes at high risk of future driving mishaps and B) an online intervention to reduce mishaps among high-risk drivers.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

To achieve aim A, in study 1, 371 drivers with type 1 diabetes from three U.S. regions completed a series of established questionnaires about diabetes and driving. They recorded their driving mishaps over the next 12 months. Questionnaire items that uniquely discriminated drivers who did and did not have subsequent driving mishaps were assembled into the Risk Assessment of Diabetic Drivers (RADD) scale. In study 2, 1,737 drivers with type 1 diabetes from all 50 states completed the RADD online. Among these, 118 low-risk (LR) and 372 high-risk (HR) drivers qualified for and consented to participate in a 2-month treatment period followed by 12 monthly recordings of driving mishaps. To address aim B, HR participants were randomized to receive either routine care (RC) or the online intervention "DiabetesDriving.com" (DD.com). Half of the DD.com participants received a motivational interview (MI) at the beginning and end of the treatment period to boost participation and efficacy. All of the LR participants were assigned to RC. In both studies, the primary outcome variable was driving mishaps.

RESULTS

Related to aim A, in study 1, the RADD demonstrated 61% sensitivity and 75% specificity. Participants in the upper third of the RADD distribution (HR), compared with those in the lower third (LR), reported 3.03 vs. 0.87 mishaps/driver/year, respectively (P < 0.001). In study 2, HR and LR participants receiving RC reported 4.3 and 1.6 mishaps/driver/year, respectively (P < 0.001). Related to aim B, in study 2, MIs did not enhance participation or efficacy, so the DD.com and DD.com + MI groups were combined. DD.com participants reported fewer hypoglycemia-related driving mishaps than HR participants receiving RC (P = 0.01), but more than LR participants receiving RC, reducing the difference between the HR and LR participants receiving RC by 63%. HR drivers differed from LR drivers at baseline across a variety of hypoglycemia and driving parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

The RADD identified higher-risk drivers, and identification seemed relatively stable across time, samples, and procedures. This 11-item questionnaire could inform patients at higher risk, and their clinicians, that they should take preventive steps to reduce driving mishaps, which was accomplished in aim B using DD.com.

Diabetes and collision risk. A meta-analysis and meta-regression

AIMS

The main objective of this study was to see whether diabetes is associated with an increased collision risk and to test the effect of age and gender on the overall collision risk for diabetes drivers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty-eight studies were included in meta-analysis, using mean age, gender, continent and the prevalence of fatal road incidents as covariates.

RESULTS

The collision risk for diabetes drivers was small and not statistically significant - RR = 1.11 (1.01-1.23) with a prediction interval (PI) or 0.77-1.65. Age and gender were not associated with an increased overall risk. Insulin-dependent diabetes patients had a slightly increased effect size compared with the overall diabetes population, but the effect was not statistically significant. European diabetes drivers had a lower collision risk compared with their North American counterparts, the main cause being the difference of collision risk in the countries in which the studies were performed.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, diabetes patients do not have a statistically significant increased risk for unfavourable traffic events. Old age and insulin-dependent patients tend to have a higher risk. Advances in diabetes care, associated with advances in road safety regulations, and automotive industry have not decreased significantly the collision risk in the last 50 years for drivers with diabetes.

Subdural hematoma in diabetic patients

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Subdural hematoma (SDH) is associated with a high mortality rate. However, the risk of SDH in diabetic patients has not been well studied. The aim of the study was to examine the risk of SDH in incident diabetic patients.

METHODS

From a universal insurance claims database of Taiwan, a cohort of 28,045 incident diabetic patients from 2000 to 2005 and a control cohort of 56,090 subjects without diabetes were identified. The incidence and hazard ratio of SDH were measured by the end of 2010.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up years were 7.24 years in the diabetes cohort and 7.44 years in the non-diabetes cohort. The incidence of SDH was 1.57-fold higher in the diabetes cohort than in the non-diabetes cohort (2.04 vs. 1.30 per 1000 person-years), with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.63 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.43-1.85]. The stratified data showed that adjusted hazard ratios were 1.51 (95% CI 1.28-1.77) for traumatic SDH and 1.89 (95% CI 1.52-2.36) for non-traumatic SDH. The 30-day mortality rate for those who developed SDH in the diabetes cohort was 8.94%.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that incident diabetic patients are at higher risk of SDH than individuals without diabetes. Proper intervention for diabetic patients is necessary for preventing the devastating disorder.

Diabetes and driving

The principal safety concern for driving for people treated with insulin or insulin secretagogues is hypoglycaemia, which impairs driving performance. Other complications, such as those causing visual impairment and peripheral neuropathy, are also relevant to medical fitness to drive. Case control studies have suggested that drivers with diabetes pose a modestly increased but acceptable and measurable risk of motor vehicle accidents compared to non-diabetic drivers, but many studies are limited and of poor quality. Factors which have been shown to increase driving risk include previous episodes of severe hypoglycaemia, previous hypoglycaemia while driving, strict glycaemic control (lower HbA1c) and absence of blood glucose monitoring before driving. Impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia may be counteracted by frequent blood glucose testing. The European Union Third directive on driving (2006) has necessitated changes in statutory regulations for driving licences for people with diabetes in all European States, including the UK. Stricter criteria have been introduced for Group 1 vehicle licences while those for Group 2 licences have been relaxed. Insulin-treated drivers can now apply to drive Group 2 vehicles, but in the UK must meet very strict criteria and be assessed by an independent specialist to be issued with a 1-year licence.

Harvesting experiential expertise to support safe driving for people with diabetes mellitus: a qualitative study evaluated by peers in a survey

BACKGROUND

Hypoglycemia is a frequent phenomenon in people being treated for diabetes mellitus, which can acutely disrupt driving performance. For the benefit of personal and public traffic safety, we decided to identify successful diabetes-related (SDR) behaviors to support safe driving for people with diabetes, from the perspective of experiential experts with diabetes mellitus. Experiential experts are people who can manage their own illness and conditions by developing expertise relevant to maintaining health and countering illness, and who are able to use this expertise to the benefit of peers.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of our study was to objectify and systematize experiential expertise in terms of SDR behaviors, based on reports by experiential experts, to support safe driving for people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus. The emphasis was on preventing hypoglycemia as a short-term complication during driving.

METHODS

We performed a mixed-methods study involving (i) semi-structured in-depth interviews with 33 experiential experts with diabetes mellitus from the Dutch Diabetes Association (DVN; Diabetesvereniging Nederland), in order to identify SDR behaviors regarding safe driving, and (ii) a validation study by means of a survey among a panel of 98 experiential experts (peers) from the DVN, to determine the extent to which they agreed with the communicability, importance, and feasibility of these behaviors for drivers with diabetes mellitus.

RESULTS

We identified a comprehensive set of 11 SDR behaviors, differentiated into seven general and four specific behaviors, to support safe driving. The general behaviors concern the following topics: (i) acquiring knowledge and information; (ii) acquiring and using self-measuring of blood glucose (SMBG) equipment; (iii) knowing one's physical response pattern; (iv) obtaining knowledge about the medication used; (v) preventing long-term eye complications; (vi) influencing factors that can affect blood glucose; and (vii) renewal procedure for driving license. The four specific behaviors refer to the following topics: (i) measures to be taken before driving; (ii) responding effectively to hypoglycemia while driving; (iii) informing and instructing passengers; and (iv) preventing hypoglycemia in drivers with type 2 diabetes mellitus not using SMBG equipment. Key factors for safe driving proved to be the ability of drivers to anticipate and respond effectively to hypoglycemia while driving and to inform and instruct fellow passengers. Participants of the validation survey agreed to a considerable degree with the communicability, importance, and feasibility of these behaviors to support safe driving for people with diabetes mellitus.

CONCLUSIONS

This study resulted in the identification and description of SDR behaviors to support safe driving. It proved possible to operationalize experiential expertise in terms of such behaviors. The next step is to have these behaviors validated by professional care providers in the field of diabetes, followed by translation into recommendations in self-management programs.

Driving with diabetes in the future: in-vehicle medical monitoring

The motor car is a ubiquitous feature of modern life, and most of us spend significant amounts of time in a car, behind the wheel. Driving a vehicle requires complex coordination of cognitive, motor, and sensory skills. All of these aspects can be affected adversely by diabetes per se, with hypoglycemia being the main concern for people with diabetes who drive. Here we introduce the concept of using the motor vehicle as a device to collect and deliver physiological and clinical information, which, in turn, may enable more people to drive more safely by reducing the chances of medical mishaps behind the wheel. This is particularly relevant for people living with diabetes who are at risk from a number of medical conditions that have the potential to have an impact on safe driving. The development of in-vehicle medical monitoring presents a new opportunity for novel collaborations between two industries, which have safety as a core value.

Hypoglycaemia: an overview

Hypoglycaemia is a frequent side-effect of treatment with insulin and sulfonylureas for people with diabetes, threatening potentially serious morbidity and preventing optimal glycaemic control. Fear of hypoglycaemia and development of syndromes such as impaired awareness and counterregulatory deficiency provide additional hazards for intensification of treatment. Rapid lowering of HbA1c may be potentially dangerous in type 2 diabetes because of the adverse cardiovascular effects induced by hypoglycaemia. Hypoglycaemia can disrupt many everyday activities such as driving, work performance and recreational pursuits. Measures to reduce the risk of hypoglycaemia are labour-intensive and require substantial resources.

Road traffic accident risk in patients with diabetes mellitus receiving blood glucose-lowering drugs. Prospective follow-up study

AIM

To investigate, at a national level, whether patients using insulin or oral glucose-lowering agents had an increased risk of road traffic accidents compared with non-users.

METHODS

All Norwegians aged 18-69 years (3.1 million) were followed from April 2004 until September 2006. Information on drug prescriptions, road traffic accidents and emigration/death was obtained from the following population-based registries: the Prescription Database, the Road Accident Registry and the Central Population Registry. The exposure period was the time from the first prescription of insulin or oral glucose-lowering agent during the study period. The incidence of accidents in the exposed person-time was compared with the incidence of accidents in the unexposed person-time by standardized incidence ratio (SIR).

RESULTS

During the study period, 20 494 road traffic accidents with personal injuries were registered in Norway. One hundred and eighty-three accidents were registered for insulin users not taking oral glucose-lowering agents and 219 for users of oral blood glucose-lowering drugs without insulin. The SIR (95% confidence interval) for all ages and both genders combined were: insulin 1.4 (1.2-1.6), oral glucose-lowering agents 1.2 (1.0-1.3) and users of drugs for peptic ulcer and gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (negative comparators) 1.3 (1.2-1.4). The highest SIRs were found among the youngest insulin users (18-34 years old).

CONCLUSIONS

A slightly increased risk of being involved in a road traffic accident was observed for drivers prescribed insulin, while no increased risk was observed for drivers prescribed oral glucose-lowering agents. The increased risk observed for insulin users was similar to that observed for users of drugs for peptic ulcer and gastro-oesophageal reflux disease.

Practical strategies to normalize hyperglycemia without undue hypoglycemia in type 2 diabetes mellitus

Hypoglycemia is a common problem in pharmacologically treated patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and can be a major barrier to achieving optimal glycemic control. For practitioners to minimize and treat hypoglycemia, it is important to understand the physiology, risk factors, and medications associated with hypoglycemia. Through education, lifestyle modifications, medication adjustments, and possibly re-examining glycemic goals, practitioners can reduce the incidence of hypoglycemia while still decreasing the risk of microvascular complications associated with hyperglycemia.

Association between road vehicle collisions and recent medical contact in older drivers: a case-crossover study

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the association between past medical contacts and the risk of vehicle collision in a population of older drivers from the province of Quebec, Canada.

DESIGN

Case-crossover study.

SETTING

Quebec.

PARTICIPANTS

111 699 older drivers involved in at least one vehicle collision between January 1988 and December 2000.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

For each driver, the risk of having a vehicle collision while exposed and not exposed to a medical contact was compared. Separate conditional logistic regression analyses were conducted for all drivers and in four diagnostic-specific subgroups.

RESULTS

The study found a weak but statistically significant increased risk of all collisions being associated with a medical contact within 1 month before the collision, for all drivers (OR=1.10, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.11) and for drivers with diabetes (OR=1.07, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.11).

CONCLUSION

Older drivers who have a collision are more likely to have been in contact with a physician shortly before the collision. These findings suggest that there might be an opportunity to detect medical conditions that put older drivers at higher risk of collision; however, further research is needed to assess the potential effectiveness and practical modalities of screening.

The decision not to drive during hypoglycemia in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes according to hypoglycemia awareness

OBJECTIVE

In recent years, there has been an ongoing discussion on the relationship between diabetes and driving. As driving performance will inevitably decline at lower levels of glycemia, patients' decisions concerning driving or taking corrective action when hypoglycemia occurs immediately before or during driving seems paramount.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Twenty-four type 1 diabetic patients with normal awareness of hypoglycemia (T1Norm group), 21 type 1 diabetic patients with impaired awareness of hypoglycemia (T1Imp group), and 20 type 2 diabetic patients with normal awareness of hypoglycemia (T2 group) were studied. They were asked whether they felt hypoglycemic and whether they would currently drive during experimental euglycemia (5.0 mmol/l) and hypoglycemia (2.7 mmol/l).

RESULTS

In the T1Norm group, 1 patient (4.2%) decided to drive during hypoglycemia. In the T1Imp group, 9 patients (42.9%) said they would drive in the hypoglycemic condition. In the T2 group, 5 patients (25%) would drive. This was more frequently the case for patients on oral hypoglycemic agents (chi2 = 4.44; P = 0.04). No effect of sex (chi2 = 0.78; P = 0.38) or age (chi2 = 0.22; P = 0.64) was noted.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with type 1 diabetes and impaired awareness of hypoglycemia frequently decided to drive while hypoglycemic, whereas patients with type 1 diabetes and normal awareness of hypoglycemia appeared to make safe decisions concerning hypoglycemia and driving. Strikingly, patients with type 2 diabetes and normal hypoglycemia awareness frequently made potentially dangerous decisions as well, particularly when using oral hypoglycemic agents. Therefore, early, clear, and consistent education is imperative.