Tory R Spindle1, Erin L Martin2, Megan Grabenauer3, Thomas Woodward4, Michael A Milburn5, Ryan Vandrey1. 1. Behavioral Pharmacology Research Unit, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. 2. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA. 3. RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA. 4. Maryland State Police, Pikesville, MD, USA. 5. Impairment Science, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cannabis legalization is expanding, but there are no established methods for detecting cannabis impairment. AIM: Characterize the acute impairing effects of oral and vaporized cannabis using various performance tests. METHODS: Participants (N = 20, 10 men/10 women) who were infrequent cannabis users ingested cannabis brownies (0, 10, and 25 mg Δ-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, THC) and inhaled vaporized cannabis (0, 5, and 20 mg THC) in six double-blind outpatient sessions. Cognitive/psychomotor impairment was assessed with a battery of computerized tasks sensitive to cannabis effects, a novel test (the DRiving Under the Influence of Drugs, DRUID®), and field sobriety tests. Blood THC concentrations and subjective drug effects were evaluated. RESULTS: Low oral/vaporized doses did not impair cognitive/psychomotor performance relative to placebo but produced positive subjective effects. High oral/vaporized doses impaired cognitive/psychomotor performance and increased positive and negative subjective effects. The DRUID® was the most sensitive test to cannabis impairment, as it detected significant differences between placebo and active doses within both routes of administration. Women displayed more impairment on the DRUID® than men at the high vaporized dose only. Field sobriety tests showed little sensitivity to cannabis-induced impairment. Blood THC concentrations were far lower after cannabis ingestion versus inhalation. After inhalation, blood THC concentrations typically returned to baseline well before pharmacodynamic effects subsided. CONCLUSIONS: Standard approaches for identifying impairment due to cannabis exposure (i.e. blood THC and field sobriety tests) have severe limitations. There is a need to identify novel biomarkers of cannabis exposure and/or behavioral tests like the DRUID® that can reliably and accurately detect cannabis impairment at the roadside and in the workplace.
BACKGROUND: Cannabis legalization is expanding, but there are no established methods for detecting cannabis impairment. AIM: Characterize the acute impairing effects of oral and vaporized cannabis using various performance tests. METHODS: Participants (N = 20, 10 men/10 women) who were infrequent cannabis users ingested cannabis brownies (0, 10, and 25 mg Δ-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, THC) and inhaled vaporized cannabis (0, 5, and 20 mg THC) in six double-blind outpatient sessions. Cognitive/psychomotor impairment was assessed with a battery of computerized tasks sensitive to cannabis effects, a novel test (the DRiving Under the Influence of Drugs, DRUID®), and field sobriety tests. Blood THC concentrations and subjective drug effects were evaluated. RESULTS: Low oral/vaporized doses did not impair cognitive/psychomotor performance relative to placebo but produced positive subjective effects. High oral/vaporized doses impaired cognitive/psychomotor performance and increased positive and negative subjective effects. The DRUID® was the most sensitive test to cannabis impairment, as it detected significant differences between placebo and active doses within both routes of administration. Women displayed more impairment on the DRUID® than men at the high vaporized dose only. Field sobriety tests showed little sensitivity to cannabis-induced impairment. Blood THC concentrations were far lower after cannabis ingestion versus inhalation. After inhalation, blood THC concentrations typically returned to baseline well before pharmacodynamic effects subsided. CONCLUSIONS: Standard approaches for identifying impairment due to cannabis exposure (i.e. blood THC and field sobriety tests) have severe limitations. There is a need to identify novel biomarkers of cannabis exposure and/or behavioral tests like the DRUID® that can reliably and accurately detect cannabis impairment at the roadside and in the workplace.
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: Matthew N Newmeyer; Madeleine J Swortwood; Megan E Taylor; Osama A Abulseoud; Thomas H Woodward; Marilyn A Huestis Journal: J Appl Toxicol Date: 2017-01-31 Impact factor: 3.446
Authors: Wendy M Bosker; Kim P C Kuypers; Eef L Theunissen; Anke Surinx; Roos J Blankespoor; Gisela Skopp; Wayne K Jeffery; H Chip Walls; Cees J van Leeuwen; Johannes G Ramaekers Journal: Addiction Date: 2012-07-12 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Ashley A Knapp; Dustin C Lee; Jacob T Borodovsky; Samantha G Auty; Joy Gabrielli; Alan J Budney Journal: J Adolesc Health Date: 2018-09-08 Impact factor: 5.012
Authors: Dennis J Sholler; Justin C Strickland; Tory R Spindle; Elise M Weerts; Ryan Vandrey Journal: Addict Biol Date: 2020-09-28 Impact factor: 4.280
Authors: Jodi M Gilman; William A Schmitt; Kevin Potter; Brian Kendzior; Gladys N Pachas; Sarah Hickey; Meena Makary; Marilyn A Huestis; A Eden Evins Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2022-01-08 Impact factor: 8.294
Authors: C Austin Zamarripa; Matthew D Novak; Elise M Weerts; Ryan Vandrey; Tory R Spindle Journal: Front Pharmacol Date: 2022-09-06 Impact factor: 5.988