No abstract

The pharmacodynamic interaction between mizolastine, a new H1 antihistamine, and ethanol was assessed in a randomized, double-blind, three-way crossover, placebo-controlled study. Eighteen healthy young male volunteers received mizolastine 10 mg, or cetirizine 10 mg or placebo once daily for 7 days with a 1-week wash-out interval. An oral dose of ethanol or ethanol placebo, given 2 h after dosing on days 5 or 7 of each treatment period, was administered to achieve a peak blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.7 g/l then maintained for 1 h by two further doses of ethanol. Driving ability and psychomotor performance were evaluated using actual and simulated driving tests, critical flicker fusion threshold (CFF), adaptive tracking and divided attention (DAT) tasks. Ethanol produced a significant decrement in all tasks up to 5.5 h after administration: an increase in steering movements of 4.6, in lateral deviation of 0.45 m, in braking reaction time of 80 ms, in driving test and DAT performance of + 3.2; and a decrease in CFF and in tracking speed of 2.6 m.s-1. Neither mizolastine nor cetirizine significantly impaired driving ability or arousal (CFF) compared with the placebo. However, both drugs significantly impaired DAT performance 6:00 h post-dose (increase of + 2.1 for mizolastine and + 2.4 for cetirizine). The tracking speed was significantly decreased 7:50 h after mizolastine administration (-1.3 m.s-1) and more consistently from 1:30 to 7:50 h after cetirizine administration (-1.4 m.s-1). No significant adverse interaction, i.e. potentiation, occurred between ethanol and either antihistamine.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

No abstract

No abstract

Summary:In the British practical driving test, serious or dangerous faults are those judged to involve potential or actual danger, and a single such fault results in test failure. As part of a wider project to review the driving test, TRL conducted a study of test-retest reliability. Test and retest outcomes differed for a substantial proportion of candidates. The paper argues that inconsistent performance on the part of the candidate is likely to explain much of this apparent unreliability.

No abstract

No abstract