Prescription opioids, alcohol and fatal motor vehicle crashes: a population-based case-control study

Background The prevalence of prescription opioid use among drivers has increased markedly in the past two decades. The purpose of this study is to assess the associations of prescription opioid use and alcohol use with the risk of fatal crash involvement in US drivers. Methods We performed a population-based case-control study using toxicological testing data from two national data systems. Cases (n = 3606) were drivers involved in fatal motor vehicle crashes selected from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System and controls (n = 15,600) were drivers participating in the 2007 and 2013 National Roadside Surveys of Alcohol and Drug Use by Drivers. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) of fatal crash involvement associated with prescription opioid use with and without the presence of alcohol. Results Overall, cases were significantly more likely than controls to test positive for prescription opioids (5.0% vs. 3.7%, p < 0.001), alcohol (56.2% vs. 7.1%, p < 0.0001), and both substances (2.2% vs. 0.2%, p < 0.001). Relative to drivers testing negative for prescription opioids and alcohol, the adjusted ORs of fatal crash involvement were 1.72 (95% CI: 1.37, 2.17) for those testing positive for prescription opioids and negative for alcohol, 17.92 (95% CI: 16.19, 19.84) for those testing positive for alcohol and negative for prescription opioids, and 21.89 (95% CI: 14.38, 33.32) for those testing positive for both substances. The interaction effect on fatal crash risk of prescription opioid use and alcohol use was not statistically significant on either additive or multiplicative scale. Conclusions Prescription opioid use is associated with a significantly increased risk of fatal crash involvement independently of alcohol use. Concurrent use of prescription opioids and alcohol is associated with a 21-fold increased risk of fatal crash involvement

Direct and indirect effects of marijuana use on the risk of fatal 2-vehicle crash initiation

Background Marijuana and alcohol each play a significant role in fatal crash initiation. We decomposed the total effect of marijuana use in the presence or absence of alcohol on fatal crash initiation into direct and indirect effects. Methods Pair-matched data on 5856 culpable drivers (initiators) and 5856 nonculpable drivers (noninitiators) involved in the same fatal 2-vehicle crashes recorded in the Fatality Analysis Reporting System between 2011 and 2016 were analyzed using the conditional logistic regression model and the unified mediation and interaction analysis framework. Results Crash initiators were more likely than noninitiators to test positive for marijuana (16.1% vs. 9.2%, P < 0.001), alcohol (28.6% vs. 9.7%, P < 0.001) and both substances (6.3% vs. 1.6%, P < .0001). Adjusted odds ratios of fatal 2-vehicle crash initiation revealed a positive interaction on the additive scale between marijuana and alcohol. Of the total effect of marijuana use on fatal 2-vehicle crash initiation, 68.8% was attributable to the direct effect (51.5% to controlled direct effect and 17.3% to reference interaction effect with alcohol) and 31.2% to the indirect effect (7.8% to mediated interaction effect and 23.4% to pure indirect effect through alcohol). Conclusion Our results indicate that the increased odds of fatal 2-vehicle crash initiation associated with marijuana use is due mainly to the direct effect

Interaction of marijuana and alcohol on fatal motor vehicle crash risk: a case–control study

Background: Concurrent use of marijuana and alcohol in drivers is of increasing concern but its role in crash causation has not been well understood. Methods: Using a case–control design, we assessed the individual and joint effects of marijuana and alcohol use on fatal crash risk. Cases (n = 1944) were drivers fatally injured in motor vehicle crashes in the United States at specific times in 2006, 2007 and 2008. Controls (n = 7719) were drivers who participated in the 2007 National Roadside Survey of Alcohol and Drug Use by Drivers. Results: Overall, cases were significantly more likely than controls to test positive for marijuana (12.2% vs. 5.9%, p < 0.0001), alcohol (57.8% vs. 7.7%, p < 0.0001) and both marijuana and alcohol (8.9% vs. 0.8%, p < 0.0001). Compared to drivers testing negative for alcohol and marijuana, the adjusted odds ratios of fatal crash involvement were 16.33 [95% confidence interval (CI): 14.23, 18.75] for those testing positive for alcohol and negative for marijuana, 1.54 (95% CI: 1.16, 2.03) for those testing positive for marijuana and negative for alcohol, and 25.09 (95% CI: 17.97, 35.03) for those testing positive for both alcohol and marijuana. Conclusions: Alcohol use and marijuana use are each associated with significantly increased risks of fatal crash involvement. When alcohol and marijuana are used together, there exists a positive synergistic effect on fatal crash risk on the additive scale

State marijuana laws and opioid overdose mortality

Background The opioid epidemic in the United States is a national public health crisis. In recent years, marijuana legalization has been increasingly adopted by state governments as a policy intervention to control the opioid epidemic under the premise that marijuana and opioids are substitutive substances. The purpose of this systematic review is to synthesize the empirical evidence regarding the impact of state marijuana laws on opioid overdose mortality and other opioid-related health outcomes. Method A comprehensive search of the research literature in 18 bibliographic databases returned 6640 records, with 5601 abstracts reviewed, 29 full text articles screened for eligibility, and 16 eligible studies included in the systematic review. Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software was used to generate summary estimates, forest plots, funnel plots, and heterogeneity statistics. Results Of the 16 eligible studies, 4 assessed the association of state marijuana law status with opioid overdose mortality, 7 with prescription opioids dispensed, and the remaining with nonmedical use and opioid-related hospitalizations. Random effects modeling based on pooled data revealed that legalizing marijuana for medical use was associated with a statistically non-significant 8% reduction in opioid overdose mortality (95% confidence interval: − 0.21 to 0.04; p = 0.201) and a 7% reduction in prescription opioids dispensed (95% confidence interval: − 0.13 to − 0.01; p = 0.017). Legalizing marijuana for recreational use was associated with an additional 7% reduction in opioid overdose mortality in Colorado and 6% reduction in opioid prescriptions among fee-for-service Medicaid and managed care enrollees. Conclusions Legalizing marijuana might contribute to a modest reduction in opioid prescriptions. Evidence about the effect of marijuana legalization on opioid overdose mortality is inconsistent and inconclusive. If any, the effectiveness of state marijuana laws in reducing opioid overdose mortality appears to be rather small and limited to states with operational marijuana dispensaries. It remains unclear whether the presumed benefit of legalizing marijuana in reducing opioid-related harms outweighs the policy’s externalities, such as its impact on mental health and traffic safety

Is marijuana use associated with decreased use of prescription opioids? Toxicological findings from two US national samples of drivers

Background State governments in the United States are increasingly viewing marijuana legalization as a policy option for controlling the opioid epidemic under the premise that marijuana is a less harmful substitute for opioids. The purpose of this study is to assess whether marijuana use is associated with decreased odds of prescription opioid use. Methods A cross-sectional study design was applied to toxicological testing data from two national samples of drivers: 1) the 2011–2016 Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and 2) the 2013–2014 National Roadside Survey of Alcohol and Drug Use by Drivers (NRS). Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) estimated from multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess the associations of marijuana use with prescription opioid use and alcohol use. Results Among the 47,602 drivers from the FARS, 15.7% tested positive for marijuana and 6.9% positive for prescription opioids. Compared with drivers testing negative for marijuana, those testing positive for marijuana were 28% more likely to test positive for prescription opioids (adjusted OR = 1.28, 95% CI = 1.15–1.42). Among the 7881 drivers from the NRS, 7.9% tested positive for marijuana and 4.5% positive for prescription opioids. Relative to drivers testing negative for marijuana, those testing positive for marijuana were twice as likely to test positive for prescription opioids (adjusted OR = 2.03, 95% CI = 1.29–3.20). In both study samples, marijuana use was associated with significantly increased odds of alcohol positivity. Conclusions Drivers who test positive for marijuana are significantly more likely to test positive for prescription opioids. Longitudinal studies with rigorous designs and toxicological testing data are needed to further address the substitution hypothesis between marijuana and prescription opioids

Depression, antidepressants and driving safety.

BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to review to review the reported associations of depression and antidepressants with motor vehicle crashes.PurposeA literature search for material published in the English language between January, 1995, and October, 2015, in bibliographic databases was combined with a search for other relevant material referenced in the retrieved articles.MethodsRetrieved articles were systematically reviewed for inclusion criteria: 19 epidemiological studies (17 case-control and 2 cohort studies) fulfilled the inclusion criteria by estimating the crash risk associated with depression and/or psychotropic medications in naturalistic settings.ResultsThe estimates of the odds ratio (OR) of crash involvement associated with depression ranged from 1.78 to 3.99. All classes of antidepressants were reported to have side effects with the potential to affect driving safety. The majority of studies of antidepressant effects on driving reported an elevated crash risk, and ORs ranged from 1.19 to 2.03 for all crashes, and 3.19 for fatal crashes. In meta-analysis, depression was associated with approximately 2-fold increased crash risk (summary OR = 1.90; 95% CI, 1.06 to 3.39), and antidepressants were associated with approximately 40% increased crash risk (summary OR = 1.40; 95%CI, 1.18 to 1.66).ConclusionBased on the findings of the studies reviewed, depression, antidepressants or the combination of depression and antidepressants may pose a potential hazard to driving safety. More research is needed to understand the individual contributions of depression and the medications used to treat depression

Validity of oral fluid test for Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in drivers using the 2013 National Roadside Survey Data

Background Driving under the influence of marijuana is a serious traffic safety concern in the United States. Delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is the main active compound in marijuana. Although blood THC testing is a more accurate measure of THC-induced impairment, measuring THC in oral fluid is a less intrusive and less costly method of testing. Methods We examined whether the oral fluid THC test can be used as a valid alternative to the blood THC test using a sensitivity and specificity analysis and a logistic regression, and estimate the quantitative relationship between oral fluid THC concentration and blood THC concentration using a correlation analysis and a linear regression on the log-transformed THC concentrations. We used data from 4596 drivers who participated in the 2013 National Roadside Survey of Alcohol and Drug Use by Drivers and for whom THC testing results from both oral fluid and whole blood samples were available. Results Overall, 8.9% and 9.4% of the participants tested positive for THC in oral fluid and whole blood samples, respectively. Using blood test as the reference criterion, oral fluid test for THC positivity showed a sensitivity of 79.4% (95% CI: 75.2%, 83.1%) and a specificity of 98.3% (95% CI: 97.9%, 98.7%). The log-transformed oral fluid THC concentration accounted for about 29% of the variation in the log-transformed blood THC concentration. That is, there is still 71% of the variation in the log-transformed blood THC concentration unexplained by the log-transformed oral fluid THC concentration. Back-transforming to the original scale, we estimated that each 10% increase in the oral fluid THC concentration was associated with a 2.4% (95% CI: 2.1%, 2.8%) increase in the blood THC concentration. Conclusions The oral fluid test is a highly valid method for detecting the presence of THC in the blood but cannot be used to accurately measure the blood THC concentration

Research utility of the National Violent Death Reporting System: a scoping review

Background To better understand and prevent suicide and homicide, the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention launched the National Violent Death Reporting System (NVDRS) in six states in 2002. As of 2018, the NVDRS has been expanded to include all 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. The purpose of this review was to assess the research utility of the NVDRS based on studies indexed in major bibliographical databases. Methods We performed a scoping review of published studies that were based on data from the NVDRS, identified by searching six electronic databases: PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, OVID, Scopus, and Web of Science. We examined the time trend of annual NVDRS-based research output, generated a word cloud using the keywords listed in the publications, and mapped the knowledge domains covered by NVDRS-based studies. Results Our review included a total of 150 studies published between 2005 and 2018. There was a marked increase in the annual number of NVDRS-based publications, with 120 (80.0%) of the 150 studies published between 2011 and 2018. Overall, 104 (69.3%) studies focused on suicide and 39 (26.0%) on homicide. Of the included studies, 100 (66.7%) were descriptive epidemiology, 31 (20.7%) were risk factor analyses, 9 (6.0%) were evaluations, 7 (4.7%) were trend analyses, and 4 (2.7%) were data quality assessments. Knowledge domain mapping identified two major clusters of studies, one on suicide and the other on homicide. The cluster on suicide was commonly linked to “circumstance,” “alcohol” and “substance abuse” and the cluster on homicide was commonly linked to “firearm,” “injury,” and “gang.” The two clusters were interlinked to overlapping networks of keywords, such as “firearm” and “mental health problem.” Conclusions Research utility of the NVDRS has increased considerably in recent years. Studies based on data from the NVDRS are clustered in two knowledge domains – suicide and homicide. The vast potential of the NVDRS for violence research and prevention remains to be fully exploited

Prevalence of Potentially Inappropriate Medication use in older drivers

Background Potentially Inappropriate Medication (PIM) use has been studied in a variety of older adult populations across the world. We sought to examine the prevalence and correlates of PIM use in older drivers. Methods We applied the American Geriatrics Society 2015 Beers Criteria to baseline data collected from the “brown-bag” review of medications for participants of the Longitudinal Research on Aging Drivers (LongROAD) study to examine the prevalence and correlates of PIM use in a geographically diverse, community-dwelling sample of older drivers (n = 2949). Proportions of participants who used one or more PIMs according to the American Geriatrics Society 2015 Beers Criteria, and estimated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of PIM use associated with participant characteristics were calculated. Results Overall, 18.5% of the older drivers studied used one or more PIM. The most commonly used therapeutic category of PIM was benzodiazepines (accounting for 16.6% of the total PIMs identified), followed by nonbenzodiazepine hypnotics (15.2%), antidepressants (15.2%), and first-generation antihistamines (10.5%). Compared to older drivers on four or fewer medications, the adjusted ORs of PIM use were 2.43 (95% CI 1.68–3.51) for those on 5–7 medications, 4.19 (95% CI 2.95–5.93) for those on 8–11 medications, and 8.01 (95% CI 5.71–11.23) for those on ≥12 medications. Older drivers who were female, white, or living in urban areas were at significantly heightened risk of PIM use. Conclusion About one in five older drivers uses PIMs. Commonly used PIMs are medications known to impair driving ability and increase crash risk. Implementation of evidence-based interventions to reduce PIM use in older drivers may confer both health and safety benefits. Trial registration Not applicable

Prevalence of Potentially Inappropriate Medication use in older drivers

Abstract Background Potentially Inappropriate Medication (PIM) use has been studied in a variety of older adult populations across the world. We sought to examine the prevalence and correlates of PIM use in older drivers. Methods We applied the American Geriatrics Society 2015 Beers Criteria to baseline data collected from the “brown-bag” review of medications for participants of the Longitudinal Research on Aging Drivers (LongROAD) study to examine the prevalence and correlates of PIM use in a geographically diverse, community-dwelling sample of older drivers (n = 2949). Proportions of participants who used one or more PIMs according to the American Geriatrics Society 2015 Beers Criteria, and estimated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of PIM use associated with participant characteristics were calculated. Results Overall, 18.5% of the older drivers studied used one or more PIM. The most commonly used therapeutic category of PIM was benzodiazepines (accounting for 16.6% of the total PIMs identified), followed by nonbenzodiazepine hypnotics (15.2%), antidepressants (15.2%), and first-generation antihistamines (10.5%). Compared to older drivers on four or fewer medications, the adjusted ORs of PIM use were 2.43 (95% CI 1.68–3.51) for those on 5–7 medications, 4.19 (95% CI 2.95–5.93) for those on 8–11 medications, and 8.01 (95% CI 5.71–11.23) for those on ≥12 medications. Older drivers who were female, white, or living in urban areas were at significantly heightened risk of PIM use. Conclusion About one in five older drivers uses PIMs. Commonly used PIMs are medications known to impair driving ability and increase crash risk. Implementation of evidence-based interventions to reduce PIM use in older drivers may confer both health and safety benefits. Trial registration Not applicable.https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/152209/1/12877_2019_Article_1287.pd