Effect of Cannabidiol and Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol on Driving Performance A Randomized Clinical Trial

被引:103
|
作者
Arkell, Thomas R. [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ]
Vinckenbosch, Frederick [4 ]
Kevin, Richard C. [1 ,2 ,5 ]
Theunissen, Eef L. [4 ]
McGregor, Iain S. [1 ,2 ,5 ]
Ramaekers, Johannes G. [4 ]
机构
[1] Univ Sydney, Lambert Initiat Cannabinoid Therapeut, Sydney, NSW, Australia
[2] Univ Sydney, Brain & Mind Ctr, Sydney, NSW, Australia
[3] Univ Sydney, Fac Med, Cent Clin Sch, Sydney, NSW, Australia
[4] Maastricht Univ, Fac Psychol & Neurosci, Maastricht, Netherlands
[5] Univ Sydney, Fac Sci, Sch Psychol, Sydney, NSW, Australia
来源
基金
英国医学研究理事会; 澳大利亚研究理事会;
关键词
ORAL FLUID; BLOOD; IMPAIRMENT; DRIVERS; ALCOHOL; ANXIETY;
D O I
10.1001/jama.2020.21218
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Importance Cannabis use has been associated with increased crash risk, but the effect of cannabidiol (CBD) on driving is unclear. Objective To determine the driving impairment caused by vaporized cannabis containing Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and CBD. Design, Setting, and Participants A double-blind, within-participants, randomized clinical trial was conducted at the Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience at Maastricht University in the Netherlands between May 20, 2019, and March 27, 2020. Participants (N = 26) were healthy occasional users of cannabis. Interventions Participants vaporized THC-dominant, CBD-dominant, THC/CBD-equivalent, and placebo cannabis. THC and CBD doses were 13.75 mg. Order of conditions was randomized and balanced. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary end point was standard deviation of lateral position (SDLP; a measure of lane weaving) during 100 km, on-road driving tests that commenced at 40 minutes and 240 minutes after cannabis consumption. At a calibrated blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.02%, SDLP was increased relative to placebo by 1.12 cm, and at a calibrated BAC of 0.05%, SDLP was increased relative to placebo by 2.4 cm. Results Among 26 randomized participants (mean [SD] age, 23.2 [2.6] years; 16 women), 22 (85%) completed all 8 driving tests. At 40 to 100 minutes following consumption, the SDLP was 18.21 cm with CBD-dominant cannabis, 20.59 cm with THC-dominant cannabis, 21.09 cm with THC/CBD-equivalent cannabis, and 18.28 cm with placebo cannabis. SDLP was significantly increased by THC-dominant cannabis (+2.33 cm [95% CI, 0.80 to 3.86]; P < .001) and THC/CBD-equivalent cannabis (+2.83 cm [95% CI, 1.28 to 4.39]; P < .001) but not CBD-dominant cannabis (-0.05 cm [95% CI, -1.49 to 1.39]; P > .99), relative to placebo. At 240 to 300 minutes following consumption, the SDLP was 19.03 cm with CBD-dominant cannabis, 19.88 cm with THC-dominant cannabis, 20.59 cm with THC/CBD-equivalent cannabis, and 19.37 cm with placebo cannabis. The SDLP did not differ significantly in the CBD (-0.34 cm [95% CI, -1.77 to 1.10]; P > .99), THC (0.51 cm [95% CI, -1.01 to 2.02]; P > .99) or THC/CBD (1.22 cm [95% CI, -0.29 to 2.72]; P = .20) conditions, relative to placebo. Out of 188 test drives, 16 (8.5%) were terminated due to safety concerns. Conclusions and Relevance In a crossover clinical trial that assessed driving performance during on-road driving tests, the SDLP following vaporized THC-dominant and THC/CBD-equivalent cannabis compared with placebo was significantly greater at 40 to 100 minutes but not 240 to 300 minutes after vaporization; there were no significant differences between CBD-dominant cannabis and placebo. However, the effect size for CBD-dominant cannabis may not have excluded clinically important impairment, and the doses tested may not represent common usage. Question What is the magnitude and duration of driving impairment following vaporization of cannabis containing varying concentrations of Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD)? Findings In this crossover clinical trial that included 26 healthy participants who underwent on-road driving tests, the standard deviation of lateral position (SDLP, a measure of lane weaving, swerving, and overcorrecting) at 40 to 100 minutes following vaporized consumption was 18.21 cm for CBD-dominant cannabis, 20.59 cm for THC-dominant cannabis, 21.09 cm for THC/CBD-equivalent cannabis, and was 18.26 cm for placebo. At 240 to 300 minutes, the SDLP was 19.03 cm for CBD-dominant cannabis, 20.59 cm for THC-dominant cannabis, 19.88 cm for THC/CBD-equivalent cannabis, and 19.37 cm for placebo. Compared with placebo, SDLP with THC-dominant and THC/CBD-equivalent cannabis was significantly greater at 40 to 100 minutes but not 240 to 300 minutes after consumption; there were no significant differences between CBD-dominant cannabis and placebo. Meaning Although this study did not find statistically significant differences in driving performance during experimental on-road driving tests between CBD-dominant cannabis and placebo, the effect size may not have excluded clinically important impairment, and the doses tested may not necessarily represent common usage. This crossover randomized clinical trial evaluated driving test performance of healthy young adult volunteers after vaporized consumption of cannabis (Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol [THC] and cannabidiol [CBD]) vs placebo.
引用
收藏
页码:2177 / 2186
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Effects of cannabidiol and Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol in the elevated plus maze in mice
    Liu, Junhan
    Scott, Brian W.
    Burnham, Willets McIntyre
    BEHAVIOURAL PHARMACOLOGY, 2022, 33 (2-3): : 206 - 212
  • [22] Stability of cannabidiol, ∆9-tetrahydrocannabinol, and cannabinol under stress conditions
    Jiroj Yangsud
    Supadit Santasanasuwan
    Pongphop Ahkkarachinoreh
    Athip Maha
    Fameera Madaka
    Jirapornchai Suksaeree
    Thanapat Songsak
    Arthimond Vutthipong
    Chaowalit Monton
    Advances in Traditional Medicine, 2021, 21 : 475 - 484
  • [23] Selective inhibition of Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol metabolite formation by cannabidiol in vitro
    McArdle, K
    Mackie, P
    Pertwee, R
    Guy, G
    Whittle, B
    Hawksworth, G
    TOXICOLOGY, 2001, 168 (01) : 133 - 134
  • [24] Comparative Metabolomic Profiling of the Metabolic Differences of Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol and Cannabidiol
    Rao, Qianru
    Zhang, Ting
    Dai, Manyun
    Li, Bin
    Pu, Qianlun
    Zhao, Min
    Cheng, Yan
    Yan, Dongmei
    Zhao, Qi
    Wu, Zhanxuan E.
    Li, Fei
    MOLECULES, 2022, 27 (21):
  • [25] Cannabidiol does not convert to Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol in an in vivo animal model
    Wray, Louise
    Stott, Colin G.
    Jones, Nicholas A.
    Wright, Stephen
    NEUROLOGY, 2017, 88
  • [26] Repeated treatment with cannabidiol but not Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol has a neuroprotective effect without the development of tolerance
    Hayakawa, Kazuhide
    Mishima, Kenichi
    Nozako, Masanori
    Ogata, Ayumi
    Hazekawa, Mai
    Liu, An-Xin
    Fujioka, Masayuki
    Abe, Kohji
    Hasebe, Nobuyoshi
    Egashira, Nobuaki
    Iwasaki, Katsunori
    Fujiwara, Michihiro
    NEUROPHARMACOLOGY, 2007, 52 (04) : 1079 - 1087
  • [27] The Effect of Orally Administered?9-Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and Cannabidiol (CBD) on Obesity Parameters in Mice
    Eitan, Adi
    Gover, Ofer
    Sulimani, Liron
    Meiri, David
    Schwartz, Betty
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR SCIENCES, 2023, 24 (18)
  • [28] Continuous-Flow Synthesis of Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol and Δ8-Tetrahydrocannabinol from Cannabidiol
    Bassetti, Benedetta
    Hone, Christopher A.
    Kappe, C. Oliver
    JOURNAL OF ORGANIC CHEMISTRY, 2023, 88 (09): : 6227 - 6231
  • [29] Combinations of Cannabidiol and Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol in Reducing Chemotherapeutic Induced Neuropathic Pain
    Sepulveda, Diana E.
    Vrana, Kent E.
    Graziane, Nicholas M.
    Raup-Konsavage, Wesley M.
    BIOMEDICINES, 2022, 10 (10)
  • [30] Opposite Effects of Δ-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol and Cannabidiol on Human Brain Function and Psychopathology
    Bhattacharyya, Sagnik
    Morrison, Paul D.
    Fusar-Poli, Paolo
    Martin-Santos, Rocio
    Borgwardt, Stefan
    Winton-Brown, Toby
    Nosarti, Chiara
    O'Carroll, Colin M.
    Seal, Marc
    Allen, Paul
    Mehta, Mitul A.
    Stone, James M.
    Tunstall, Nigel
    Giampietro, Vincent
    Kapur, Shitij
    Murray, Robin M.
    Zuardi, Antonio W.
    Crippa, Jose A.
    Atakan, Zerrin
    McGuire, Philip K.
    NEUROPSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY, 2010, 35 (03) : 764 - 774