Evaluation of four oral fluid devices (DDS®, Drugtest 5000®, Drugwipe 5+® and RapidSTAT®) for on-site monitoring drugged driving in comparison with UHPLC–MS/MS analysis

Rossi, Sabina Strano; Castrignanò, Erika; Anzillotti, Luca; Serpelloni, Giovanni; Mollica, Roberto; Tagliaro, Franco; Pascali, Jennifer P.; Stefano, Delfina di; Sgalla, Roberto; Chiarotti, Marcello

doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2012.04.003

Cited by 80 publications

(67 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The sensitivity and specificity values for THC, cocaine, methamphetamine and opioids were within the "high" (0.800-0.899) to "very high" (0.900-0.999) range according to the designations used in the DRUID project [4] and were comparable to values of the best performing devices in other recent studies [5][6][7][8][9]. These results indicate that the devices were able to correctly detect the drug/drug category when the drug/drug category was present and to correctly indicate the absence of a drug/drug category when none was present.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 75%

An assessment of oral fluid drug screening devices

Beirness

Smith

2016

Canadian Society of Forensic Science Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This project was to examine point-of-contact (POC) oral fluid drug screening devices to determine the suitability of such devices for potential use in the enforcement of drug-impaired driving in Canada. Oral fluid samples were collected from a group of individuals who admitted to having recently ingested drugs as well as a number of individuals who had not been using drugs. These samples were tested on one of three oral fluid screening devices to determine the presence of cannabis, cocaine, amphetamine, methamphetamine, opioids, and benzodiazepines. Each participant also provided a second oral fluid sample that was sent to a reference laboratory for independent analysis. Comparison of the results from the oral fluid screening device and those from the laboratory analysis provided estimates of sensitivity and specificity for each of the six drugs/drug categories. Sensitivity exceeded 0.80 for cannabis, cocaine, methamphetamine, and opioids. False positive rates for these drugs/drug categories were all between 3% and 7%. Specificity exceeded 0.90 for all drugs/drug categories. These findings indicate that oral fluid screening could prove to be a valuable tool in the detection of driver drug use in Canada.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 75%

An assessment of oral fluid drug screening devices

Beirness

Smith

2016

Canadian Society of Forensic Science Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some of the devices that have been evaluated in peerreviewed journals within the last few years include the Cozart ® DDS, Dräger DrugTest ® 5000, RapidSTAT ® , DrugWipe ® 5 + , OraLab ® 6, OrAlert ™ and OraTect ® III (Table 1) [59][60][61][62][63]. All the currently available devices target the parent compound THC, though many have recorded cross-reactivity with 11-OH-THC and THC-COOH.…”

Section: Screening Testsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Techniques and Technologies for The Bioanalysis of Sativex ^® , Metabolites and Related Compounds

Molnár

2016

Bioanalysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sativex(®) is an oromucosal spray indicated for the treatment of moderate-to-severe spasticity in multiple sclerosis and is also an effective analgesic for advanced cancer patients. Sativex contains Δ(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol in an approximately 1:1 ratio. The increasing prevalence of medicinal cannabis products highlights the importance of reliable bioanalysis and re-evaluation of the interpretation of positive test results for THC, as legal implications may arise in workplace, roadside and sports drug testing situations. This article summarizes published research on the bioanalysis of THC and cannabidiol, with particular focus on Sativex. Common screening and confirmatory testing of blood, urine, oral fluid and hair samples are outlined. Correlations between matrices and current analytical pitfalls are also addressed.

show abstract

“…De la même façon, Strano-Rossi et coll. [18] confirment l'amélioration globale des dispositifs entre ROSITA-2 et l'étude DRUID mais cela a coïncidé avec des critères d'évaluation moins stricts. Ainsi, la VPP est de 78 % (paramètre évalué sur 438 confirmation par analyse UPLC-MS tandem dans le fluide oral).…”

Section: Cannabinoïdesunclassified

“…(18). Les brigades territoriales de ces départements, adressent également à l'IRCGN des prélèvements, le plus souvent dans un contexte d'accident (mortel ou corporel) de la circulation.…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

Usage de stupéfiants au volant, bilan des résultats de deux laboratoires (CHRU Lille et IRCGN)

Perrin

Halart

Coste³

et al. 2012

Ann Toxicol Anal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Résumé -Objectif :Étude rétrospective des résultats des analyses de confirmation pratiquées par deux laboratoires, étude des performances des tests de dépistage (calcul de la valeur prédictive positive), évaluation de la fiabilié diagnostique des dépistages confirmés pour l'usage de stupéfiants au volant. Matériel et méthodes : Compilation des résultats des analyses de confirmation par CPG-SM pour quatre grandes familles de stupéfiants réalisées après dépistage urinaire ou dans le fluide oral, ou en l'absence de dépistage. Résultats : La substance illicite la plus fréquemment mise en évidence chez les conducteurs dépistés est le cannabis, avec une distribution (parmi les dossiers soumis à confirmation) de 51 % au CHRU de Lille (458 confirmations pour 895 dossiers) et 87 % à l'IRCGN (679 confirmations pour 779 dossiers). Les amphétamines et dérivés se classent au deuxième rang avec 6 % de prévalence parmi les échantillons analysés par le CHRU de Lille (soit 57 dossiers sur 895), alors qu'à l'IRCGN ce sont les opiacés (15 dossiers sur 108 confirmations). Les dossiers dans lesquels de la morphine a été mise en évidence restent difficiles à interpréter en termes d'usage de stupéfiants en raison du facteur de confusion lié à l'administration à visée antalgique ou la prise d'opiacés licites. Conclusion : Les tests de dépistage urinaire ou dans le fluide oral sont aptes à repérer les conducteurs ayant fait usage de stupéfiants. Le cannabis est la substance la plus fréquemment retrouvée, ce qui est en accord avec les données disponibles sur les habitudes de consommation en population générale. Mots clés :Conduite automobile, dépistage salive, valeur prédictive positive, distribution de la consommation de stupéfiants Abstract -Objective: Retrospective study of the results of confirmatory analysis performed by two laboratories in order to verify the overall performance of the screening tests (calculation of the positive predictive value) and to avaluate the overall performance of roadside tests when they are found positive. Material and Methods: Data collection of GC-MS results for four major families of illicit substances, after urine or oral fluid screening tests, or in the case of no available screening data. Results: The illegal substance most frequently encountered in the tested drivers is cannabis, with a prevalence (among the analyzed samples) of 51% at the Lille University Hospital (458 confirmed cases out of 895) and 87% at the IRCGN (679 confirmed cases out of 779). At the Lille University Hospital amphetamines come second, with 6% prevalence among the analyzed samples (57 positives for 895 cases). The opiate family is found in 15 among 108 confirmation analyses at the IRCGN. Cases where the presence of morphine has been demonstrated remain difficult to interpret in regard to the use of street drugs because of confounding factors related to the administration of pain killers or the intake of licit opiates. Conclusion: Urine or oral fluid tests are therefore able to select drivers who have used narcotics before o...

show abstract

Evaluation of four oral fluid devices (DDS®, Drugtest 5000®, Drugwipe 5+® and RapidSTAT®) for on-site monitoring drugged driving in comparison with UHPLC–MS/MS analysis

Cited by 80 publications

References 15 publications

An assessment of oral fluid drug screening devices

An assessment of oral fluid drug screening devices

Techniques and Technologies for The Bioanalysis of Sativex ^® , Metabolites and Related Compounds

Usage de stupéfiants au volant, bilan des résultats de deux laboratoires (CHRU Lille et IRCGN)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Evaluation of four oral fluid devices (DDS®, Drugtest 5000®, Drugwipe 5+® and RapidSTAT®) for on-site monitoring drugged driving in comparison with UHPLC–MS/MS analysis

Cited by 80 publications

References 15 publications

An assessment of oral fluid drug screening devices

An assessment of oral fluid drug screening devices

Techniques and Technologies for The Bioanalysis of Sativex ® , Metabolites and Related Compounds

Usage de stupéfiants au volant, bilan des résultats de deux laboratoires (CHRU Lille et IRCGN)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Techniques and Technologies for The Bioanalysis of Sativex ^® , Metabolites and Related Compounds