Psychopharmacology · 2005
An evaluation of the sensitivity of the standardised field sobriety tests to detect the presence of amphetamine.
Сравнительное исследованиеКонтролируемое клиническое исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Silber Beata Y, Papafotiou Katherine, Croft Rodney J, Stough Con K K
Аннотация
RATIONALE: The Standardised Field Sobriety Tests (SFSTs), designed and validated to assess impairment associated with alcohol intoxication, are currently being employed by the Victoria Police (Australia) for the identification of driving impairment associated with drugs other than alcohol.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the SFSTs are a sensitive measure for identifying the presence of dexamphetamine and methamphetamine.
METHODS: Three studies each employed a repeated-measures, counterbalanced, double-blind placebo-controlled design. In each study, 20 healthy volunteers completed two treatment conditions: either 0.42 mg/kg d,l-dexamphetamine and placebo, 0.42 mg/kg d,l-methamphetamine and placebo, or 0.42 mg/kg d-methamphetamine and placebo. Performance was assessed using the SFSTs, consisting of the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test, the Walk and Turn test, and the One Leg Stand test. Blood and saliva samples were obtained before and immediately after the administration of the SFSTs (120 and 170 min post drug administration).
RESULTS: At 120 and 170 min post drug administration, d,l-dexamphetamine blood levels were 83.16 and 98.42 ng/ml, respectively; d,l-methamphetamine levels were 90 and 95 ng/ml, respectively; and d-methamphetamine blood levels were 72 and 67 ng/ml, respectively. None of the three amphetamine doses impaired performance on the SFSTs. Using the SFSTs, the presence of dexamphetamine was identified in 5% of cases, d-methamphetamine in 5%, and d,l-methamphetamine in 0% of cases.
CONCLUSIONS: Under these conditions, the SFSTs are not a sensitive measure for detecting the presence of low levels of amphetamine.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the SFSTs are a sensitive measure for identifying the presence of dexamphetamine and methamphetamine.
METHODS: Three studies each employed a repeated-measures, counterbalanced, double-blind placebo-controlled design. In each study, 20 healthy volunteers completed two treatment conditions: either 0.42 mg/kg d,l-dexamphetamine and placebo, 0.42 mg/kg d,l-methamphetamine and placebo, or 0.42 mg/kg d-methamphetamine and placebo. Performance was assessed using the SFSTs, consisting of the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test, the Walk and Turn test, and the One Leg Stand test. Blood and saliva samples were obtained before and immediately after the administration of the SFSTs (120 and 170 min post drug administration).
RESULTS: At 120 and 170 min post drug administration, d,l-dexamphetamine blood levels were 83.16 and 98.42 ng/ml, respectively; d,l-methamphetamine levels were 90 and 95 ng/ml, respectively; and d-methamphetamine blood levels were 72 and 67 ng/ml, respectively. None of the three amphetamine doses impaired performance on the SFSTs. Using the SFSTs, the presence of dexamphetamine was identified in 5% of cases, d-methamphetamine in 5%, and d,l-methamphetamine in 0% of cases.
CONCLUSIONS: Under these conditions, the SFSTs are not a sensitive measure for detecting the presence of low levels of amphetamine.