荷兰马斯特里赫特大学Johannes G. Ramaekers团队研究了大麻二酚和Δ9-四氢大麻酚对驾驶员表现的影响。2020年12月1日，该研究发表在《美国医学会杂志》上。

大麻的使用增加了车祸的风险，但大麻二酚（CBD）对驾驶的影响尚不清楚。

为了评估包含Δ9-四氢大麻酚（THC）和CBD的蒸汽大麻引起的驾驶障碍，2019年5月20日至2020年3月27日，研究组在荷兰马斯特里赫特大学心理与神经科学学院进行了一项双盲、参与者内部的随机临床试验，共招募了26例偶尔吸食大麻的健康参与者。将参与者随机分组，分别吸食THC为主、CBD为主、THC/CBD等效的蒸汽大麻，以及安慰剂。THC和CBD剂量为13.75 mg。

主要终点为100 km内的横向车道定位标准差（SDLP），该测试是在吸食大麻后40分钟和240分钟进行的。在校正的血液酒精浓度（BAC）为0.02％时，SDLP相对于安慰剂增加1.12 cm，在校正的BAC为0.05％时，SDLP相对于安慰剂增加2.4 cm。

26名随机参与者的平均年龄为23.2岁，其中16名为女性，有22名（85％）完成了所有8项驾驶测试。吸食后40至100分钟，CBD为主大麻的SDLP为18.21 cm，THC为主大麻为20.59 cm，THC/CBD等效大麻为21.09 cm，安慰剂为18.28 cm。与安慰剂相比，THC为主的大麻和THC/CBD等效大麻的SDLP显著增加，但不包括CBD为主的大麻。

吸食后240至300分钟，CBD为主大麻的SDLP为19.03 cm，THC为主大麻为19.88 cm，THC/CBD等效大麻为20.59 cm，安慰剂为19.37 cm。与安慰剂相比，THC为主、CBD为主、THC/CBD等效大麻的SDLP均没有显著差异。出于安全考虑，188个测试驱动中有16个（8.5％）被终止。

综上，在一项评估公路驾驶测试中驾驶表现的跨界临床试验中，与安慰剂相比，驾驶员在吸食THC蒸汽为主的大麻和THC/CBD等效大麻后40至100分钟的SDLP显著增加，但在吸食后240至300分钟则没有显著差异。

附：英文原文

Title: Effect of Cannabidiol and Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol on Driving Performance: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Author: Thomas R. Arkell, Frederick Vinckenbosch, Richard C. Kevin, Eef L. Theunissen, Iain S. McGregor, Johannes G. Ramaekers

Issue&Volume: 2020/12/01

Abstract:

Importance  Cannabis use has been associated with increased crash risk, but the effect of cannabidiol (CBD) on driving is unclear.

Objective  To determine the driving impairment caused by vaporized cannabis containing Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and CBD.

Design, Setting, and Participants  A double-blind, within-participants, randomized clinical trial was conducted at the Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience at Maastricht University in the Netherlands between May 20, 2019, and March 27, 2020. Participants (N=26) were healthy occasional users of cannabis.

Interventions  Participants vaporized THC-dominant, CBD-dominant, THC/CBD-equivalent, and placebo cannabis. THC and CBD doses were 13.75 mg. Order of conditions was randomized and balanced.

Main Outcomes and Measures  The primary end point was standard deviation of lateral position (SDLP; a measure of lane weaving) during 100 km, on-road driving tests that commenced at 40 minutes and 240 minutes after cannabis consumption. At a calibrated blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.02%, SDLP was increased relative to placebo by 1.12 cm, and at a calibrated BAC of 0.05%, SDLP was increased relative to placebo by 2.4 cm.

Results  Among 26 randomized participants (mean [SD] age, 23.2 [2.6] years; 16 women), 22 (85%) completed all 8 driving tests. At 40 to 100 minutes following consumption, the SDLP was 18.21 cm with CBD-dominant cannabis, 20.59 cm with THC-dominant cannabis, 21.09 cm with THC/CBD-equivalent cannabis, and 18.28 cm with placebo cannabis. SDLP was significantly increased by THC-dominant cannabis (+2.33 cm [95% CI, 0.80 to 3.86]; P<.001) and THC/CBD-equivalent cannabis (+2.83 cm [95% CI, 1.28 to 4.39]; P<.001) but not CBD-dominant cannabis (0.05 cm [95% CI, 1.49 to 1.39]; P>.99), relative to placebo. At 240 to 300 minutes following consumption, the SDLP was 19.03 cm with CBD-dominant cannabis, 19.88 cm with THC-dominant cannabis, 20.59 cm with THC/CBD-equivalent cannabis, and 19.37 cm with placebo cannabis. The SDLP did not differ significantly in the CBD (0.34 cm [95% CI, 1.77 to 1.10]; P>.99), THC (0.51 cm [95% CI, 1.01 to 2.02]; P>.99) or THC/CBD (1.22 cm [95% CI, 0.29 to 2.72]; P=.20) conditions, relative to placebo. Out of 188 test drives, 16 (8.5%) were terminated due to safety concerns.

Conclusions and Relevance  In a crossover clinical trial that assessed driving performance during on-road driving tests, the SDLP following vaporized THC-dominant and THC/CBD-equivalent cannabis compared with placebo was significantly greater at 40 to 100 minutes but not 240 to 300 minutes after vaporization; there were no significant differences between CBD-dominant cannabis and placebo. However, the effect size for CBD-dominant cannabis may not have excluded clinically important impairment, and the doses tested may not represent common usage.

DOI: 10.1001/jama.2020.21218

Source: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2773562