Background: The purpose of this study was to examine whether drinkers would change their alcohol consumption behavior if an effective hangover treatment became available. Methods: An online survey was held among Dutch students, aged 18-30 years, who recently had a hangover. Participants were asked (1) whether they would buy an effective hangover treatment if it became available and (2) whether using such a product would increase their alcohol consumption. In a follow-up survey, the same participants could clarify their answers in detail. Results: A total of 1837 subjects completed the survey: 69.9% of the participants indicated they would buy an effective hangover treatment if available, 8.1% answered ''no'', and 22.1% did not know. Only 13.4% stated that using such a treatment would increase their alcohol consumption. The majority of 71.6% stated it would not increase their alcohol consumption and 15.1% did not know. The follow-up survey was completed by N ¼ 471 participants, of which 11.9% stated consuming more alcohol, 70.3% reported not to drink more alcohol, and 17.8% did not know. Motives for not consuming more alcohol were ''The risk of having a hangover does not influence my drinking behavior'' (24.2%), and ''alcohol is a harmful substance'' (20.3%). Discussion: Social drinkers second the need for an effective hangover treatment. However, according to the vast majority of them, the availability of an effective hangover treatment would not result in an increase of alcohol consumption.

Background: Intranasal esketamine demonstrates rapid improvement of depressive symptoms. However, transient adverse effects (dissociation, sedation and dizziness) may occur, which could impact driving performance. Aims: To evaluate the effects of 84 mg intranasal esketamine on driving performance in unipolar major depressive disorder (MDD) or persistent depressive disorder (PDD) patients. Methods: The study consisted of two parts. Part A was a single-blind, double-dummy, randomized three-period, cross-over study to compare effects of esketamine versus placebo on next morning driving, 18 ± 2 h post-treatment. Alcohol was administered to demonstrate assay sensitivity. In Part B, same-day driving, 6 ± 0.5 hours post-treatment, was assessed during twice weekly esketamine administration for 3 weeks. Twenty-seven patients with mild-to-moderate MDD or PDD without psychotic features completed a 100 km on-the-road driving test on a public highway in normal traffic. The primary outcome was standard deviation of lateral position (SDLP; cm; weaving of car). Results: In Part A, alcohol impaired driving performance compared to placebo: Least-square means (95% CI), p-value for delta SDLP (cm) compared with placebo: (ΔSDLP = + 1.83 (1.03; 2.62), p < 0.001), whereas esketamine did not: (ΔSDLP = −0.23 (−1.04; 0.58), p = 0.572). In Part B, weekly driving tests showed no differences between placebo baseline SDLP and after esketamine administration over 3 weeks: Day 11: (ΔSDLP = −0.96 (−3.72; 1.81), p = 0.493), Day 18: (ΔSDLP = −0.56 (−3.33; 2.20), p = 0.686) and Day 25: (ΔSDLP = −1.05 (−3.82; 1.71), p = 0.451). Conclusions: In this study, esketamine did not impair on-road driving performance the next morning following a single dose, or on same day after repeated administration.

No abstract