Hollis C Karoly1, Michael A Milburn2, Ashley Brooks-Russell3, Mary Brown4,5, Jessica Streufert5, Angela D Bryan1,6, Nicholas P Lovrich7, William DeJong8, L Cinnamon Bidwell1,6. 1. Institute for Cognitive Science, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, USA. 2. Impairment Science, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. 3. Department of Community and Behavioral Health, Colorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado, USA. 4. Advanced Integrative Medical Science Institute, Seattle, Washington, USA. 5. SMJ Consulting, Seattle, Washington, USA. 6. Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, USA. 7. Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington, USA. 8. Department of Public Health and Community Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Abstract
Background: Recently increased access to cannabis products in the United States has been associated with increased rates of driving after cannabis use. Although numerous studies indicate that cannabis impairs psychomotor and neurocognitive functions that can affect driving ability, the determination of cannabis-impaired driving risk is complicated by the extent to which frequent cannabis users develop tolerance to THC's subjective, cognitive, and psychomotor effects, and by the fact that there is no validated behavioral or biological marker of recent cannabis use or cannabis-related impairment. This study examined the psychomotor impairment-related effects experienced by frequent cannabis users in Colorado after naturalistic consumption of smoked cannabis, both immediately and 1 h postuse. Results were then validated in a smaller replication sample from Washington state. Methods: In the primary Colorado study, participants (n=70) used the DRUID® mobile app, a brief measure of psychomotor and cognitive domains that are sensitive to the effects of cannabis. First, participants used DRUID to establish a sober baseline impairment score. During a second appointment, they used DRUID at three time points: preuse, immediately after acutely using cannabis, and 1 h postuse. In the Washington replication sample, participants (n=39) used DRUID before acute cannabis consumption and then every half hour for 2.5 h. Results: In both studies, peak DRUID impairment effects were seen immediately after cannabis use, with recovery of performance at 1 h postuse. Specifically, significant quadratic effects of time emerged for both studies (Colorado study: (β=-0.935, SE=0.204, p<0.001); Washington study: β=3.0299, SE=1.3085, p<0.01). Domain-specific effects were tested in the larger Colorado study and were observed for reaction time within a complex divided attention task and a postural-stability balance task. Conclusions: These findings demonstrate that psychomotor impairment emerges immediately after acute cannabis use even in regular users, but decreases significantly 1 h postuse. These results underscore the potential utility of the DRUID app for assessing acute cannabis-related psychomotor impairment. Further research is needed to explore whether the DRUID app and/or the specific psychomotor functions it assesses might serve as a tool for measuring cannabis-related driving impairment. Clinical trials registration number for the Colorado Study: NCT03522103.
Background: Recently increased access to cannabis products in the United States has been associated with increased rates of driving after cannabis use. Although numerous studies indicate that cannabis impairs psychomotor and neurocognitive functions that can affect driving ability, the determination of cannabis-impaired driving risk is complicated by the extent to which frequent cannabis users develop tolerance to THC's subjective, cognitive, and psychomotor effects, and by the fact that there is no validated behavioral or biological marker of recent cannabis use or cannabis-related impairment. This study examined the psychomotor impairment-related effects experienced by frequent cannabis users in Colorado after naturalistic consumption of smoked cannabis, both immediately and 1 h postuse. Results were then validated in a smaller replication sample from Washington state. Methods: In the primary Colorado study, participants (n=70) used the DRUID® mobile app, a brief measure of psychomotor and cognitive domains that are sensitive to the effects of cannabis. First, participants used DRUID to establish a sober baseline impairment score. During a second appointment, they used DRUID at three time points: preuse, immediately after acutely using cannabis, and 1 h postuse. In the Washington replication sample, participants (n=39) used DRUID before acute cannabis consumption and then every half hour for 2.5 h. Results: In both studies, peak DRUID impairment effects were seen immediately after cannabis use, with recovery of performance at 1 h postuse. Specifically, significant quadratic effects of time emerged for both studies (Colorado study: (β=-0.935, SE=0.204, p<0.001); Washington study: β=3.0299, SE=1.3085, p<0.01). Domain-specific effects were tested in the larger Colorado study and were observed for reaction time within a complex divided attention task and a postural-stability balance task. Conclusions: These findings demonstrate that psychomotor impairment emerges immediately after acute cannabis use even in regular users, but decreases significantly 1 h postuse. These results underscore the potential utility of the DRUID app for assessing acute cannabis-related psychomotor impairment. Further research is needed to explore whether the DRUID app and/or the specific psychomotor functions it assesses might serve as a tool for measuring cannabis-related driving impairment. Clinical trials registration number for the Colorado Study: NCT03522103.
Authors: Nathalie A Desrosiers; Johannes G Ramaekers; Emeline Chauchard; David A Gorelick; Marilyn A Huestis Journal: J Anal Toxicol Date: 2015-03-04 Impact factor: 3.367
Authors: Rebecca L Hartman; Timothy L Brown; Gary Milavetz; Andrew Spurgin; Russell S Pierce; David A Gorelick; Gary Gaffney; Marilyn A Huestis Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2015-06-23 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Erin L Karschner; Madeleine J Swortwood; Jussi Hirvonen; Robert S Goodwin; Wendy M Bosker; Johannes G Ramaekers; Marilyn A Huestis Journal: Drug Test Anal Date: 2015-06-11 Impact factor: 3.345
Authors: J H P van Wel; K P C Kuypers; E L Theunissen; S W Toennes; D B Spronk; R J Verkes; J G Ramaekers Journal: Br J Pharmacol Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 8.739
Authors: L Cinnamon Bidwell; Raeghan Mueller; Sophie L YorkWilliams; Sarah Hagerty; Angela D Bryan; Kent E Hutchison Journal: Cannabis Cannabinoid Res Date: 2018-03-01
Authors: R Andrew Sewell; Ashley Schnakenberg; Jacqueline Elander; Rajiv Radhakrishnan; Ashley Williams; Patrick D Skosnik; Brian Pittman; Mohini Ranganathan; D Cyril D'Souza Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2012-11-24 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Tory R Spindle; Erin L Martin; Megan Grabenauer; Thomas Woodward; Michael A Milburn; Ryan Vandrey Journal: J Psychopharmacol Date: 2021-05-28 Impact factor: 4.562