Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

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.
Forensic Sci Int. 2012 Sep 10; 221(1-3):70-6.FS

Abstract

New Italian legislation on driving under the influence of drugs considers oral fluid (OF) as a possible alternative drug testing matrix. On this basis, the present research was carried out to evaluate the applicability of four commercial on-site OF drug screening devices, namely DDS(®), Drugtest 5000(®), Drugwipe 5+(®) and RapidSTAT(®), in a real operative context. Preliminarily trained police officers tested randomly stopped drivers with two different kits side-by-side during roadside patrols. A central laboratory confirmed on-site kits' results by UHPLC-MS/MS analysis of the saliva specimen remaining after the screening analysis. 1025 drivers were submitted to the OF tests: 11.6% were positive for cocaine and metabolites, 11.1% for THC, 6% for amphetamines and amphetamine-type designer drugs and 2.3% for ketamine. The sensitivities of the kits were 81% (RapidSTAT(®)), 82% (DDS(®)), 90% (Drugwipe 5+(®)) and 97% (Drugtest 5000(®)) for cocaine and 38% (DDS(®)), 47% (Drugwipe 5+(®)), 72% (RapidSTAT(®)) and 92% (Drugtest 5000(®)) for THC. Drugtest 5000 was the only kit showing an acceptable sensitivity for on-site application. Only Drugtest 5000(®) and RapidSTAT(®) could be evaluated for amphetamines and methamphetamines: Drugtest 5000(®) showed a sensitivity of 100% in the case of amphetamines and 86% for methamphetamines, while RapidSTAT(®) 90% and 76% respectively. Nowadays, ketamine is not included in the target analytes of any on-site devices, but it was systematically included in the UHPLC-MS/MS confirmatory analysis. To ensure adequate reliability, MS confirmation of on-site OF screening tests is anyway always necessary, due to the presence of a significant number of false positive results even when using the commercial kit with the best performance.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Institute of Legal Medicine, Catholic University of Sacred Heart, L.go F. Vito, 1, Rome, Italy. sabina.stranorossi@gmail.comNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Evaluation Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Language

eng

PubMed ID

22554872

Citation

Strano-Rossi, Sabina, et al. "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." Forensic Science International, vol. 221, no. 1-3, 2012, pp. 70-6.
Strano-Rossi S, Castrignanò E, Anzillotti L, et al. 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. Forensic Sci Int. 2012;221(1-3):70-6.
Strano-Rossi, S., Castrignanò, E., Anzillotti, L., Serpelloni, G., Mollica, R., Tagliaro, F., Pascali, J. P., di Stefano, D., Sgalla, R., & Chiarotti, M. (2012). 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. Forensic Science International, 221(1-3), 70-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2012.04.003
Strano-Rossi S, et al. 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. Forensic Sci Int. 2012 Sep 10;221(1-3):70-6. PubMed PMID: 22554872.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - 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. AU - Strano-Rossi,Sabina, AU - Castrignanò,Erika, AU - Anzillotti,Luca, AU - Serpelloni,Giovanni, AU - Mollica,Roberto, AU - Tagliaro,Franco, AU - Pascali,Jennifer P, AU - di Stefano,Delfina, AU - Sgalla,Roberto, AU - Chiarotti,Marcello, Y1 - 2012/05/01/ PY - 2012/01/27/received PY - 2012/03/27/revised PY - 2012/04/07/accepted PY - 2012/5/5/entrez PY - 2012/5/5/pubmed PY - 2013/1/9/medline SP - 70 EP - 6 JF - Forensic science international JO - Forensic Sci Int VL - 221 IS - 1-3 N2 - New Italian legislation on driving under the influence of drugs considers oral fluid (OF) as a possible alternative drug testing matrix. On this basis, the present research was carried out to evaluate the applicability of four commercial on-site OF drug screening devices, namely DDS(®), Drugtest 5000(®), Drugwipe 5+(®) and RapidSTAT(®), in a real operative context. Preliminarily trained police officers tested randomly stopped drivers with two different kits side-by-side during roadside patrols. A central laboratory confirmed on-site kits' results by UHPLC-MS/MS analysis of the saliva specimen remaining after the screening analysis. 1025 drivers were submitted to the OF tests: 11.6% were positive for cocaine and metabolites, 11.1% for THC, 6% for amphetamines and amphetamine-type designer drugs and 2.3% for ketamine. The sensitivities of the kits were 81% (RapidSTAT(®)), 82% (DDS(®)), 90% (Drugwipe 5+(®)) and 97% (Drugtest 5000(®)) for cocaine and 38% (DDS(®)), 47% (Drugwipe 5+(®)), 72% (RapidSTAT(®)) and 92% (Drugtest 5000(®)) for THC. Drugtest 5000 was the only kit showing an acceptable sensitivity for on-site application. Only Drugtest 5000(®) and RapidSTAT(®) could be evaluated for amphetamines and methamphetamines: Drugtest 5000(®) showed a sensitivity of 100% in the case of amphetamines and 86% for methamphetamines, while RapidSTAT(®) 90% and 76% respectively. Nowadays, ketamine is not included in the target analytes of any on-site devices, but it was systematically included in the UHPLC-MS/MS confirmatory analysis. To ensure adequate reliability, MS confirmation of on-site OF screening tests is anyway always necessary, due to the presence of a significant number of false positive results even when using the commercial kit with the best performance. SN - 1872-6283 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/22554872/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_ DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -