Residual effects of esmirtazapine on actual driving performance: Overall findings and an exploratory analysis into the role of CYP2D6 phenotype

Department of Neuropsychology and Psychopharmacology, Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Psychopharmacology (Impact Factor: 3.88). 05/2011; 215(2):321-32. DOI: 10.1007/s00213-010-2149-4
Source: PubMed


Esmirtazapine is evaluated as a novel drug for treatment of insomnia.
The present study was designed to assess residual effects of single and repeated doses of esmirtazapine 1.5 and 4.5 mg on actual driving in 32 healthy volunteers in a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Treatment with single doses of zopiclone 7.5 mg was included as active control.
Treatments were administered in the evening. Driving performance was assessed in the morning, 11 h after drug intake, in a standardized on-the-road highway driving test. The primary study parameter was standard deviation of lateral position (SDLP), a measure of "weaving". All subjects were subjected to CYP2D6 phenotyping in order to distinguish poor metabolizers from extensive metabolizers of esmirtazapine.
Overall, esmirtazapine 1.5 mg did not produce any clinically relevant change in SDLP after single and repeated dosing. Driving impairment, i.e., a rise in SDLP, did occur after a single-dose administration of esmirtazapine 4.5 mg but was resolved after repeated doses. Acute driving impairment was more pronounced after both doses of esmirtazapine in a select group of poor metabolizers (N = 7). A single-dose zopiclone 7.5 mg also increased SDLP as expected.
It is concluded that single and repeated doses of 1.5 mg esmirtazapine are generally not associated with residual impairment. Single-dose administration of 4.5 mg esmirtazapine was associated with residual impairment that generally resolved after repeated administration. Exploratory analysis in a small group of poor CYP 2D6 metabolizers suggested that these subjects are more sensitive to the impairing effects of esmirtazapine on car driving.

Download full-text


Available from: Silke Conen, Oct 02, 2015
18 Reads
  • Source
    • "Sample size calculation was based on detecting a minimally relevant difference with an effect size of 0.25 between placebo and the 0.5 g/L BAC condition. Given a test-retest reliability of tracking error and reaction time at the Divided Attention Test of at least r = 0.75 (Ramaekers et al. 2011a), a group of 24 participants should permit detection of a mean change in tracking error and reaction time, with a power of at least 90 % and an α of 0.05. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Medication and illicit drugs can have detrimental side effects which impair driving performance. A drug's impairing potential should be determined by well-validated, reliable, and sensitive tests and ideally be calibrated by benchmark drugs and doses. To date, no consensus has been reached on the issue of which psychometric tests are best suited for initial screening of a drug's driving impairment potential. The aim of this alcohol calibration study is to determine which performance tests are useful to measure drug-induced impairment. The effects of alcohol are used to compare the psychometric quality between tests and as benchmark to quantify performance changes in each test associated with potentially impairing drug effects. Twenty-four healthy volunteers participated in a double-blind, four-way crossover study. Treatments were placebo and three different doses of alcohol leading to blood alcohol concentrations (BACs) of 0.2, 0.5, and 0.8 g/L. Main effects of alcohol were found in most tests. Compared with placebo, performance in the Divided Attention Test (DAT) was significantly impaired after all alcohol doses and performance in the Psychomotor Vigilance Test (PVT) and the Balance Test was impaired with a BAC of 0.5 and 0.8 g/L. The largest effect sizes were found on postural balance with eyes open and mean reaction time in the divided attention and the psychomotor vigilance test. The preferable tests for initial screening are the DAT and the PVT, as these tests were most sensitive to the impairing effects of alcohol and being considerably valid in assessing potential driving impairment.
    Psychopharmacology 01/2014; 231(12). DOI:10.1007/s00213-013-3408-y · 3.88 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "These standard training protocols have been applied in previous studies and were demonstrated to bring subjects to stable performance levels under repeated testing during 1–2 weeks of placebo treatments (e.g. [23], [24], [25]). We therefore believe that the influence of practice effects during repeated testing were minimal or absent in the present study since these were already controlled for during the training phase. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The present study assessed psychomotor function in chronic, daily cannabis smokers during 3 weeks continuously monitored abstinence on a secure research unit. We hypothesized that psychomotor performance would improve during abstinence of chronic, daily cannabis smokers. Performance on the critical tracking (CTT) and divided attention (DAT) tasks was assessed in 19 male chronic, daily cannabis smokers at baseline and after 8, 14-16 and 21-23 days of continuously monitored abstinence. Psychomotor performance was compared to a control group of non-intoxicated occasional drug users. Critical frequency (λ(c)) of the CTT and tracking error and control losses of the DAT were the primary outcome measures. Results showed that chronic cannabis smokers' performance on the CTT (p<0.001) and the DAT (p<0.001) was impaired during baseline relative to the comparison group. Psychomotor performance in the chronic cannabis smokers improved over 3 weeks of abstinence, but did not recover to equivalent control group performance. Sustained cannabis abstinence moderately improved critical tracking and divided attention performance in chronic, daily cannabis smokers, but impairment was still observable compared to controls after 3 weeks of abstinence. Between group differences, however, need to be interpreted with caution as chronic smokers and controls were not matched for education, social economic status, life style and race.
    PLoS ONE 01/2013; 8(1):e53127. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0053127 · 3.23 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Health literacy is defined as the degree to which individuals obtain, process, and understand basic health information and services to make informed health decisions. Health literacy is a stronger predictor of health than age, income, employment, education, and race. Although the field has grown during the past decade, most health literacy research does not explicitly focus on food or nutrition, and dietetics practitioners often remain unaware of patients' health literacy level. The purpose of this systematic review was to summarize the literature on nutrition and health literacy to enhance dietetics practitioners' awareness of the importance of health literacy in practice and research. Of the 33 studies reviewed, four focused on measurement development, 16 on readability assessments, and 13 on individual literacy skills assessments. Collective evaluation revealed four noteworthy gaps, including the need to use more comprehensive assessment approaches that move beyond readability and numeracy to address the full spectrum of health literacy factors; the need to apply more robust experimental studies to examine the effectiveness of health literacy interventions among individuals, communities, health care providers, and health care systems; the need to explore the moderating and mediating roles of an individual's health literacy status on nutrition outcomes; and the need to examine long-term effects of health literacy interventions on nutrition outcomes. This article defines health literacy gaps and opportunities in nutrition research and practice, and calls for continued action to elevate the role of dietetics practitioners in addressing health literacy.
    Journal of the American Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics 02/2012; 112(2):254-65. DOI:10.1016/j.jada.2011.08.042 · 3.47 Impact Factor
Show more