20
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Roadside opioid testing of drivers using oral fluid: the case of a country with a zero tolerance law, Spain

      case-report

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Opioids can impair psychomotor performance, and driving under the influence of opioids is associated with an increased risk of accidents. The goals of this study were i) to determine the prevalence of opioids (heroin, morphine, codeine, methadone and tramadol) in Spanish drivers and ii) to explore the presence of opioids, more specifically whether they are used alone or in combination with other drugs.

          Methods

          The 2008/9 DRUID database regarding Spain was used, which provided information on 3302 drivers. All drivers included in the study provided a saliva sample and mass-chromatographic analyses were carried out in all cases. To determine the prevalence, the sample was weighted according to traffic intensity. In the case of opioid use combinations, the sample was not weighted. The detection limit for each substance was considered a positive result.

          Results

          The prevalence of opioids in Spanish drivers was 1.8% (95% CI, 1.4–2.3). Polydrug detection was common (56.2%): of these, in two out of three cases, two opioids were detected and cocaine was also detected in 86% of the cases. The concentration (median [Q1-Q3] ng/ml) of the substances was low: methadone 1.71 [0.10–15.30], codeine 40.55 [2.10–120.77], 6-acetylmorphine 5.71 [1.53–84.05], and morphine 37.40 [2.84–200.00]. Morphine was always detected with 6-acetylmorphine (heroin use).

          Conclusions

          Driving under the influence of opioids is relatively infrequent, but polydrug use is common. Our study shows that 6 out of 10 drivers with methadone in their OF (likely in methadone maintenance programs) are using other substances. This should be taken into account by health professionals in order to properly inform patients about the added risks of mixing substances when driving.

          Related collections

          Most cited references27

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Risk of road accident associated with the use of drugs: a systematic review and meta-analysis of evidence from epidemiological studies.

          Rune Elvik (2013)
          This paper is a corrigendum to a previously published paper where errors were detected. The errors have been corrected in this paper. The paper is otherwise identical to the previously published paper. A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that have assessed the risk of accident associated with the use of drugs when driving is presented. The meta-analysis included 66 studies containing a total of 264 estimates of the effects on accident risk of using illicit or prescribed drugs when driving. Summary estimates of the odds ratio of accident involvement are presented for amphetamines, analgesics, anti-asthmatics, anti-depressives, anti-histamines, benzodiazepines, cannabis, cocaine, opiates, penicillin and zopiclone (a sleeping pill). For most of the drugs, small or moderate increases in accident risk associated with the use of the drugs were found. Information about whether the drugs were actually used while driving and about the doses used was often imprecise. Most studies that have evaluated the presence of a dose-response relationship between the dose of drugs taken and the effects on accident risk confirm the existence of a dose-response relationship. Use of drugs while driving tends to have a larger effect on the risk of fatal and serious injury accidents than on the risk of less serious accidents (usually property-damage-only accidents). The quality of the studies that have assessed risk varied greatly. There was a tendency for the estimated effects of drug use on accident risk to be smaller in well-controlled studies than in poorly controlled studies. Evidence of publication bias was found for some drugs. The associations found cannot be interpreted as causal relationships, principally because most studies do not control very well for potentially confounding factors.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Medication use and the risk of motor vehicle collisions among licensed drivers: A systematic review.

            Driving under the influence of prescription and over-the-counter medication is a growing public health concern. A systematic review of the literature was performed to investigate which specific medications were associated with increased risk of motor vehicle collision (MVC).
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A European approach to categorizing medicines for fitness to drive: outcomes of the DRUID project.

              To illustrate (i) the criteria and the development of the DRUID categorization system, (ii) the number of medicines that have currently been categorized, (iii) the added value of the DRUID categorization system and (iv) the next steps in the implementation of the DRUID system. The development of the DRUID categorization system was based on several criteria. The following steps were considered: (i) conditions of use of the medicine, (ii) pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic data, (iii) pharmacovigilance data, including prevalence of undesirable effects, (iv) experimental and epidemiological data, (v) additional data derived from the patient information leaflet, existing categorization systems and (vi) final categorization. DRUID proposed four tiered categories for medicines and driving. In total, 3054 medicines were reviewed and over 1541 medicines were categorized (the rest were no longer on the EU market). Nearly half of the 1541 medicines were categorized 0 (no or negligible influence on fitness to drive), about 26% were placed in category I (minor influence on fitness to drive) and 17% were categorized as II or III (moderate or severe influence on fitness to drive). The current DRUID categorization system established and defined standardized and harmonized criteria to categorize commonly used medications, based on their influence on fitness to drive. Further efforts are needed to implement the DRUID categorization system at a European level and further activities should be undertaken in order to reinforce the awareness of health care professionals and patients on the effects of medicines on fitness to drive. © 2012 The Authors. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology © 2012 The British Pharmacological Society.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                ifierro@uemc.es
                monica.colas@dgt.es
                jcluque@dgt.es
                alvarez@med.uva.es
                Journal
                Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy
                Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy
                Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy
                BioMed Central (London )
                1747-597X
                10 May 2017
                10 May 2017
                2017
                : 12
                : 22
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0000 9274 367X, GRID grid.411057.6, Institute for Alcohol and Drug Studies, Pharmacology and Therapeutics, , Faculty of Medicine, & CEIC/CEIm Hospital Clinico Universitario de Valladolid, ; 47005 Valladolid, Spain
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0617 3236, GRID grid.443890.2, , Directorate General for Traffic (Dirección General de Tráfico), ; 28071 Madrid, Spain
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7566-5678
                Article
                108
                10.1186/s13011-017-0108-3
                5424296
                28490343
                9ff7692e-41d0-47b3-b228-514815780f2b
                © The Author(s). 2017

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 3 March 2017
                : 5 May 2017
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100004587, Instituto de Salud Carlos III;
                Award ID: Redes Temáticas de Investigación Cooperativa, Red de Trastornos Adictivos RD12/0028/0012 & RD16/0017/0006, co-funded by FEDER funds of the European Union –a way to build Europe.
                Categories
                Short Report
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2017

                Health & Social care
                drug abuse,oral fluid,automobile driving,drivers,heroin,methadone,saliva,opioid addiction,substance abuse detection,street drug testing

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content201

                Cited by4

                Most referenced authors177