Cannabis use as a risk factor for causing motor vehicle crashes: a prospective study.

AIM: We conducted a responsibility analysis to determine whether drivers injured in motor vehicle collisions who test positive for Δ-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) or other drugs are more likely to have contributed to the crash than those who test negative. DESIGN: Prospective case-control study. SETTING: Trauma centres in British Columbia, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Injured drivers who required blood tests for clinical purposes following a motor vehicle collision. MEASUREMENTS: Excess whole blood remaining after clinical use was obtained and broad-spectrum toxicology testing performed. The analysis quantified alcohol and THC and gave semiquantitative levels of other impairing drugs and medications. Police crash reports were analysed to determine which drivers contributed to the crash (responsible) and which were 'innocently involved' (non-responsible). We used unconditional logistic regression to determine the likelihood (odds ratio: OR) of crash responsibility in drivers with 0 < THC < 2 ng/ml, 2 ng/ml ≤ THC < 5 ng/ml and THC ≥ 5 ng/ml (all versus THC = 0 ng/ml). Risk estimates were adjusted for age, sex and presence of other impairing substances. FINDINGS: We obtained toxicology results on 3005 injured drivers and police reports on 2318. Alcohol was detected in 14.4% of drivers, THC in 8.3%, other drugs in 8.9% and sedating medications in 19.8%. There was no increased risk of crash responsibility in drivers with THC < 2 ng/ml or 2 ≤ THC < 5 ng/ml. In drivers with THC ≥ 5 ng/ml, the adjusted OR was 1.74 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.59-6.36; P = 0.35]. There was significantly increased risk of crash responsibility in drivers with blood alcohol concentration (BAC) ≥ 0.08% (OR = 6.00;95% CI = 3.87-9.75; P < 0.01), other recreational drugs detected (OR = 1.82;95% CI = 1.21-2.80; P < 0.01) or sedating medications detected (OR = 1.45; 95%CI = 1.11-1.91; P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In this sample of non-fatally injured motor vehicle drivers in British Columbia, Canada, there was no evidence of increased crash risk in drivers with Δ-9-tetrahydrocannabinol < 5 ng/ml and a statistically non-significant increased risk of crash responsibility (odds ratio = 1.74) in drivers with Δ-9-tetrahydrocannabinol ≥ 5 ng/ml.

Intravenous cefazolin plus oral probenecid versus oral cephalexin for the treatment of skin and soft tissue infections: a double-blind, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to determine if cephalexin 500 mg orally four times daily was non-inferior to cefazolin 2 g intravenously daily plus probenecid 1 g orally daily in the management of patients with uncomplicated mild-moderate skin and soft tissue infection (SSTI) presenting to the ED. METHODS: This was a prospective, multicentre, double dummy-blind, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial conducted at two tertiary care teaching hospitals in Canada. Patients were enrolled if they presented to the ED with an uncomplicated SSTI, and randomly assigned in a 1:1 fashion to oral cephalexin or intravenous cefazolin plus oral probenecid for up to 7 days. The primary outcome was failure of therapy at 72 hours. Clinical cure at 7 days, intravenous to oral medication transition admission to hospital and adverse events were also evaluated. RESULTS: 206 patients were randomised with 104 patients in the cephalexin group and 102 in the cefazolin and probenecid group. The proportion of patients failing therapy at 72 hours was similar between the treatment groups (4.2% and 6.1%, risk difference 1.9%, 95% CI -3.7% to 7.6%). Clinical cure at 7 days was not significantly different (100% and 97.7%, risk difference -2.3%, 95% CI -6.7% to 0.8%). CONCLUSION: Cephalexin at appropriate doses appears to be a safe and effective alternative to outpatient parenteral cefazolin in the treatment of uncomplicated mild-moderate SSTIs who present to the ED. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01029782; Results.

Prevalence of alcohol and drug use in injured British Columbia drivers.

OBJECTIVES: Determine the prevalence of drug use in injured drivers and identify associated demographic factors and crash characteristics. DESIGN: Prospective cross-sectional study. SETTING: Seven trauma centres in British Columbia, Canada (2010-2012). PARTICIPANTS: Automobile drivers who had blood obtained within 6 h of a crash. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We analysed blood for cannabis, alcohol and other impairing drugs using liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry (LCMS). RESULTS: 1097 drivers met inclusion criteria. 60% were aged 20-50 years, 63.2% were male and 29.0% were admitted to hospital. We found alcohol in 17.8% (15.6% to 20.1%) of drivers. Cannabis was the second most common recreational drug: cannabis metabolites were present in 12.6% (10.7% to 14.7%) of drivers and we detected Δ-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ-9-THC) in 7.3% (5.9% to 9.0%), indicating recent use. Males and drivers aged under 30 years were most likely to use cannabis. We detected cocaine in 2.8% (2.0% to 4.0%) of drivers and amphetamines in 1.2% (0.7% to 2.0%). We also found medications including benzodiazepines (4.0% (2.9% to 5.3%)), antidepressants (6.5% (5.2% to 8.1%)) and diphenhydramine (4.7% (3.5% to 6.2%)). Drivers aged over 50 years and those requiring hospital admission were most likely to have used medications. Overall, 40.1% (37.2% to 43.0%) of drivers tested positive for alcohol or at least one impairing drug and 12.7% (10.7% to 14.7%) tested positive for more than one substance. CONCLUSIONS: Alcohol, cannabis and a broad range of other impairing drugs are commonly detected in injured drivers. Alcohol is well known to cause crashes, but further research is needed to determine the impact of other drug use, including drug-alcohol and drug-drug combinations, on crash risk. In particular, more work is needed to understand the role of medications in causing crashes to guide driver education programmes and improve public safety.