Abstract
Background: Despite increasing medical cannabis use, research has yet to establish whether and to what extent products containing delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) impact driving performance among patients. Stable doses of prescribed cannabinoid products during long-term treatment may alleviate clinical symptoms affecting cognitive and psychomotor performance.
Aim: To examine the effects of open-label prescribed medical cannabis use on simulated driving performance among patients.
Methods: In a semi-naturalistic laboratory study, 40 adults (55% male) aged between 23 and 80 years, consumed their own prescribed medical cannabis product. Driving performance outcomes including standard deviation of lateral position (SDLP), the standard deviation of speed (SDS), mean speed and steering variability were evaluated using the Forum8 driving simulator at baseline (pre-dosing), 2.5 h and 5 -h (post-dosing). Perceived driving effort (PDE) was self-reported after each drive. Oral fluid and whole blood samples were collected at multiple timepoints and analysed for THC via liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry.
Results: A significant main effect of time was observed for mean speed (p = 0.014) and PDE (p = 0.020), with patients displaying modest stabilisation of vehicle control, increased adherence to speed limits and reductions in PDE post-dosing, relative to baseline. SDLP (p = 0.015) and PDE (p = 0.043) were elevated for those who consumed oil relative to flower-based products. Detectable THC concentrations were observed in oral fluid at 6-h post-dosing (range = 0-24 ng/mL).
Conclusions: This semi-naturalistic study suggests that the consumption of medical cannabis containing THC (1.13-39.18 mg/dose) has a negligible impact on driving performance when used as prescribed.
Keywords: Driving performance, SDLP, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, medical cannabis
Conflict of interest statement
Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: ACH is supported by a Rebecca L. Cooper Al and Val Rosenstrauss Fellowship (GNT: F2021894). All other authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.