The proposed project will test three commercial cellphone breathalyzers against a police grade breathalyzer device.The study will test the accuracy of these smartphone breathalyzers at assessing Breath Alcohol Content (BrAC) against a standard police grade breathalyzer. This study aims to fill the knowledge gap by determining the validity of smartphone paired breathalyzer devices to accurately assess BrAC. Data collection includes collection of BrAC measurements, as well as survey data.
Full Title of Study: “Reducing Risky Drinking Using Smartphone Paired Breathalyzer”
- Study Type: Interventional
- Study Design
- Intervention Model: Single Group Assignment
- Primary Purpose: Health Services Research
- Masking: None (Open Label)
- Study Primary Completion Date: April 17, 2017
- Device: Smartphone-paired mobile breathalyzer
- All subjects will first be given a priming dose of alcohol containing vodka designed to raise the blood alcohol content based on weight and gender. Blood alcohol content will first be measured with three commercial smartphone-paired breathalyzers: Drivesafe Evoc, Alcohoot, and BacTrack Pro which will be tested in a randomized order and recorded. Participants’ blood alcohol content will also be measured using the Intoxilyzer 240, a police grade breathalyzer device. After the tertiary dose of alcohol, a nurse will perform a blood draw on the participants, which will be used to determine blood alcohol content.
Arms, Groups and Cohorts
- Experimental: Commercial Smartphone-paired breathalyzers
- All subjects will first be given a priming dose of alcohol containing vodka designed to raise the blood alcohol content based on weight and gender. Blood alcohol content will first be measured with three commercial smartphone-paired breathalyzers: Drivesafe Evoc, Alcohoot, and BacTrack Pro which will be tested in a randomized order and recorded. Participants blood alcohol content will also be measured using the Intoxilyzer 240, a police grade breathalyzer device After the tertiary dose of alcohol, a nurse will perform a blood draw on the participants, which will be used to determine blood alcohol content.
Clinical Trial Outcome Measures
- Blood Alcohol Content Variability
- Time Frame: 8 Hours
- Mean paired-difference between the peak BrAC and phlebotomy drawn BAC among the police-grade and personal breath testing devices
- Differences in Breathlyzer Readings
- Time Frame: 8 Hours
- Mean difference in BrAC between the police-grade and personal breath testing devices
Participating in This Clinical Trial
- Age 21-39 old
- Less than 4 drinking days and less than 12 drinks per week on average in the past 2 months
- Have previously consumed four (women) or five (men) or more standard drinks without problems
- A valid photo ID
- Willing to take public transportation home, via septa or an uber rideshare credit.
- Desire alcohol treatment now or received it in the past 6 months
- Alcohol dependence with withdrawal per DSM-V criteria
- Individuals who have a medical condition or who are taking medication which limits or prevents the consumption of alcohol.
Gender Eligibility: All
Minimum Age: 21 Years
Maximum Age: 39 Years
Are Healthy Volunteers Accepted: Accepts Healthy Volunteers
- Lead Sponsor
- University of Pennsylvania
- Provider of Information About this Clinical Study
- Overall Official(s)
- M. Kit Delgado, MD, MS, Principal Investigator, University of Pennsylvania
Alessi SM, Petry NM. A randomized study of cellphone technology to reinforce alcohol abstinence in the natural environment. Addiction. 2013 May;108(5):900-9. doi: 10.1111/add.12093. Epub 2013 Jan 30.
Easton CJ, Swan S, Sinha R. Prevalence of family violence in clients entering substance abuse treatment. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2000 Jan;18(1):23-8.
Harrison EL, Fillmore MT. Are bad drivers more impaired by alcohol? Sober driving precision predicts impairment from alcohol in a simulated driving task. Accid Anal Prev. 2005 Sep;37(5):882-9.
Harrison EL, Marczinski CA, Fillmore MT. Driver training conditions affect sensitivity to the impairing effects of alcohol on a simulated driving test [corrected]. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2007 Dec;15(6):588-98. doi: 10.1037/1064-1222.214.171.1248. Erratum in: Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2008 Apr;16(2):177.
Kosten TR, O'Connor PG. Management of drug and alcohol withdrawal. N Engl J Med. 2003 May 1;348(18):1786-95. Review.
Loewenstein G, Brennan T, Volpp KG. Asymmetric paternalism to improve health behaviors. JAMA. 2007 Nov 28;298(20):2415-7.
MacKillop J, Amlung MT, Few LR, Ray LA, Sweet LH, Munafò MR. Delayed reward discounting and addictive behavior: a meta-analysis. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2011 Aug;216(3):305-21. doi: 10.1007/s00213-011-2229-0. Epub 2011 Mar 4.
Marczinski CA, Stamates AL. Artificial sweeteners versus regular mixers increase breath alcohol concentrations in male and female social drinkers. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2013 Apr;37(4):696-702. doi: 10.1111/acer.12039. Epub 2012 Dec 6.
McCarthy DM, Niculete ME, Treloar HR, Morris DH, Bartholow BD. Acute alcohol effects on impulsivity: associations with drinking and driving behavior. Addiction. 2012 Dec;107(12):2109-14. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2012.03974.x. Epub 2012 Aug 10.
McNeill JA, Sherwood GD, Starck PL, Thompson CJ. Assessing clinical outcomes: patient satisfaction with pain management. J Pain Symptom Manage. 1998 Jul;16(1):29-40.
Patel MS, Asch DA, Volpp KG. Wearable devices as facilitators, not drivers, of health behavior change. JAMA. 2015 Feb 3;313(5):459-60. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.14781.
Naimi TS, Brewer RD, Mokdad A, Denny C, Serdula MK, Marks JS. Binge drinking among US adults. JAMA. 2003 Jan 1;289(1):70-5.
Petry NM. A comprehensive guide to the application of contingency management procedures in clinical settings. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2000 Feb 1;58(1-2):9-25. Review.
Petry NM, Martin B, Cooney JL, Kranzler HR. Give them prizes, and they will come: contingency management for treatment of alcohol dependence. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2000 Apr;68(2):250-7.
Prendergast M, Podus D, Finney J, Greenwell L, Roll J. Contingency management for treatment of substance use disorders: a meta-analysis. Addiction. 2006 Nov;101(11):1546-60. Review.
Roll JM, Petry NM, Stitzer ML, Brecht ML, Peirce JM, McCann MJ, Blaine J, MacDonald M, DiMaria J, Lucero L, Kellogg S. Contingency management for the treatment of methamphetamine use disorders. Am J Psychiatry. 2006 Nov;163(11):1993-9.
Senecal N, Wang T, Thompson E, Kable JW. Normative arguments from experts and peers reduce delay discounting. Judgm Decis Mak. 2012 Sep 1;7(5):568-589.
Sloan FA, Eldred LM, Xu Y. The behavioral economics of drunk driving. J Health Econ. 2014 May;35:64-81. doi: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2014.01.005. Epub 2014 Feb 11.
Van Dyke N, Fillmore MT. Acute effects of alcohol on inhibitory control and simulated driving in DUI offenders. J Safety Res. 2014 Jun;49:5-11. doi: 10.1016/j.jsr.2014.02.004. Epub 2014 Mar 22.
Watson PE, Watson ID, Batt RD. Prediction of blood alcohol concentrations in human subjects. Updating the Widmark Equation. J Stud Alcohol. 1981 Jul;42(7):547-56.
White A, Hingson R. The burden of alcohol use: excessive alcohol consumption and related consequences among college students. Alcohol Res. 2013;35(2):201-18. Review.
Clinical trials entries are delivered from the US National Institutes of Health and are not reviewed separately by this site. Please see the identifier information above for retrieving further details from the government database.