Fitness to drive and cannabis: Validation of two blood THCCOOH thresholds to distinguish occasional users from heavy smokers.

Many studies based on either an experimental or an epidemiological approach, have shown that the ability to drive is impaired when the driver is under the influence of cannabis. Baseline performances of heavy users remain impaired even after several weeks of abstinence. Symptoms of cannabis abuse and dependence are generally considered incompatible with safe driving. Recently, it has been shown that traffic safety can be increased by reporting the long-term unfit drivers to the driver licensing authorities and referring the cases for further medical assessment. Evaluation of the frequency of cannabis use is a prerequisite for a reliable medical assessment of the fitness to drive. In a previous paper we advocated the use of two thresholds based on 11-nor-9-carboxy-Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THCCOOH) concentration in whole blood to help to distinguish occasional cannabis users (≤3μg/L) from heavy regular smokers (≥40μg/L). These criteria were established on the basis of results obtained in a controlled cannabis smoking study with placebo, carried out with two groups of young male volunteers; the first group was characterized by a heavy use (≥10 joints/month) while the second group was made up of occasional users smoking at most 1 joint/week. However, to date, these cutoffs have not been adequately assessed under real conditions. Their validity can now be evaluated and confirmed with 146 traffic offenders' real cases in which the whole blood cannabinoid concentrations and the frequency of cannabis use are known. The two thresholds were not challenged by the presence of ethanol (40% of cases) and of other therapeutic and illegal drugs (24%). Thus, we propose the following procedure that can be very useful in the Swiss context but also in other countries with similar traffic policies: if the whole blood THCCOOH concentration is higher than 40μg/L, traffic offenders must be directed first and foremost toward medical assessment of their fitness to drive. This evaluation is not recommended if the THCCOOH concentration is lower than 3μg/L and if the self-rated frequency of cannabis use is less than 1 time/week. A THCCOOH level between these two thresholds cannot be reliably interpreted. In such a case, further medical assessment and follow-up of the fitness to drive are also suggested, but with lower priority.

High expectation in non-evidence-based smoking cessation interventions among smokers--the CoLaus study.

To assess the preferred methods to quit smoking among current smokers. Cross-sectional, population-based study conducted in Lausanne between 2003 and 2006 including 988 current smokers. Preference was assessed by questionnaire. Evidence-based (EB) methods were nicotine replacement, bupropion, physician or group consultations; non-EB-based methods were acupuncture, hypnosis and autogenic training. EB methods were frequently (physician consultation: 48%, 95% confidence interval (45-51); nicotine replacement therapy: 35% (32-38)) or rarely (bupropion and group consultations: 13% (11-15)) preferred by the participants. Non-EB methods were preferred by a third (acupuncture: 33% (30-36)), a quarter (hypnosis: 26% (23-29)) or a seventh (autogenic training: 13% (11-15)) of responders. On multivariate analysis, women preferred both EB and non-EB methods more frequently than men (odds ratio and 95% confidence interval: 1.46 (1.10-1.93) and 2.26 (1.72-2.96) for any EB and non-EB method, respectively). Preference for non-EB methods was higher among highly educated participants, while no such relationship was found for EB methods. Many smokers are unaware of the full variety of methods to quit smoking. Better information regarding these methods is necessary.

An analysis of protocols and publications suggested that most discontinuations of clinical trials were not based on preplanned interim analyses or stopping rules.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the frequency of interim analyses, stopping rules, and data safety and monitoring boards (DSMBs) in protocols of randomized controlled trials (RCTs); to examine these features across different reasons for trial discontinuation; and to identify discrepancies in reporting between protocols and publications. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We used data from a cohort of RCT protocols approved between 2000 and 2003 by six research ethics committees in Switzerland, Germany, and Canada. RESULTS: Of 894 RCT protocols, 289 prespecified interim analyses (32.3%), 153 stopping rules (17.1%), and 257 DSMBs (28.7%). Overall, 249 of 894 RCTs (27.9%) were prematurely discontinued; mostly due to reasons such as poor recruitment, administrative reasons, or unexpected harm. Forty-six of 249 RCTs (18.4%) were discontinued due to early benefit or futility; of those, 37 (80.4%) were stopped outside a formal interim analysis or stopping rule. Of 515 published RCTs, there were discrepancies between protocols and publications for interim analyses (21.1%), stopping rules (14.4%), and DSMBs (19.6%). CONCLUSION: Two-thirds of RCT protocols did not consider interim analyses, stopping rules, or DSMBs. Most RCTs discontinued for early benefit or futility were stopped without a prespecified mechanism. When assessing trial manuscripts, journals should require access to the protocol.