To assess the degree of ethanol absorption and subsequent formation of urinary ethyl glucuronide (EtG) and ethyl sulfate (EtS) following sustained application of hand sanitizer, 11 volunteers cleansed their hands with Purell™ hand sanitizer (62% ethanol) every 5 min for 10 h on three consecutive days. Urine specimens were obtained at the beginning and end of each day of the study, and on the morning of the fourth day. Urinary creatinine, ethanol, EtG, and EtS concentrations were measured. EtG was undetectable in all pre-study urine specimens, but two pre-study specimens had detectable EtS (73 and 37 ng/mL). None of the pre-study specimens had detectable ethanol. The maximum EtG and EtS concentrations over the course of the study were 2001 and 84 ng/mL, respectively, and nearly all EtG- and EtS-positive urine specimens were collected at the conclusion of the individual study days. Only two specimens had detectable EtG at the beginning of any study day (96 and 139 ng/mL), and only one specimen had detectable EtS at the beginning of a study day (64 ng/mL), in addition to the two with detectable EtS prior to the study. Creatinine-adjusted maximum EtG and EtS concentrations were 1998 and 94 µg/g creatinine, respectively. In patients being monitored for ethanol use by urinary EtG concentrations, currently accepted EtG cutoffs do not distinguish between ethanol consumption and incidental exposures, particularly when urine specimens are obtained shortly after sustained use of ethanol-containing hand sanitizer. Our data suggest that EtS may be an important complementary biomarker in distinguishing ethanol consumption from dermal exposure.

To determine the degree of ethanol absorption and the resultant formation and urinary excretion of its conjugated metabolites following intensive use of high ethanol content mouthwash, 10 subjects gargled with Listerine^® antiseptic 4 times daily for 3¼ days. First morning void urine specimens were collected on each of the four study days and post-gargle specimens were collected at 2, 4, and 6 h after the final gargle of the study. Urine ethanol, ethyl glucuronide (EtG), ethyl sulfate (EtS), and creatinine were measured. Ethanol was below the positive threshold of 20 mg/dL in all of the urine specimens. EtG was undetectable in all pre-study urine specimens, but two pre-study specimens had detectable EtS (6 and 82 ng/mL; 16 and 83 µg/g creatinine). Only one specimen contained detectable EtG (173 ng/mL; 117 µg/g creatinine). EtS was detected in the urine of seven study subjects, but was not detected in the single specimen that had detectable EtG. The maximum EtS concentrations were 104 ng/mL and 112 µg/g creatinine (in different subjects). Three subjects produced a total of eight (non-baseline) urinary EtS concentrations above 50 ng/mL or 50 µg/g creatinine and three EtS concentrations exceeding 100 ng/mL or 100 µg/g creatinine. In patients being monitored for ethanol use by urinary EtG and EtS concentrations, currently accepted EtG and EtS cutoffs of 500 ng/mL are adequate to distinguish between ethanol consumption and four times daily use of high ethanol content mouthwash.

Motor vehicle crashes are a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. Drivers with measurable quantities of potentially impairing illicit or prescription drugs in their body fluids are multiple times more likely to be involved in motor vehicle crashes than those without such drugs in their bodies. Drug-related impairment, however, cannot be inferred solely on the basis of the presence of drugs in biological fluids. Thus, for more than a quarter century, there has been a search for drug blood concentrations that are the equivalent of the 0.08 g/dL threshold for alcohol-impaired driving in the United States. We suggest that such equivalents are a mirage, and cannot be determined due to variable drug tolerance, lack of consistent relationships between drug blood concentrations and impairment, innumerable drug combinations and multiple other factors. Thus, while the idea of determining impairing drug concentrations is attractive, it is ultimately unattainable, and withholding drugged driving legislation pending the acquisition of such data is tantamount to a plan for inaction with regard to an important and growing public health and safety problem. We propose specific legislation to address alcohol- and drug-impaired driving in the United States.

Marilyn is a 68-year-old woman with breast cancer metastatic to the lungs and the thoracic and lumbar spine. She is currently undergoing chemotherapy with doxorubicin. She reports having very low energy, minimal appetite, and substantial pain in her thoracic and lumbar spine. For relief of nausea, she has taken ondansetron and prochlorperazine, with minimal success. She has been taking 1000 mg of acetaminophen every 8 hours for the pain. Sometimes at night she takes 5 mg or 10 mg of oxycodone to help provide pain relief. During a visit with her primary care physician she asks about the possibility of using marijuana to help alleviate the nausea, pain, and fatigue. She lives in a state that allows marijuana for personal medicinal use, and she says her family could grow the plants. As her physician, what advice would you offer with regard to the use of marijuana to alleviate her current symptoms? Do you believe that the overall medicinal benefits of marijuana outweigh the risks and potential harms?