Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Performance evaluation of on-site oral fluid drug screening devices in normal police procedure in Germany.
Forensic Sci Int. 2014 May; 238:120-4.FS

Abstract

There is a need for quick and reliable methods for rapid screening of drug-influenced drivers on the roadside by police. Because the window of detection in oral fluid is more similar to blood than to urine, this matrix should therefore be appropriate for screening procedures. The performance of the Rapid STAT(®) (Mavand Solution GmbH, Mössingen, Germany), DrugWipe5/5+(®) (Securetec Detektions-Systeme AG, Brunnthal, Germany) and Dräger DrugTest(®) 5000 (Draeger Safety AG & Co. KGaA, Luebeck, Germany) on-site oral fluid devices was evaluated with random oral fluid specimens from car drivers in North Rhine-Westphalia (Germany). Additionally, some drivers were checked using an on-site urine device (DrugScreen(®), NAL von Minden, Regensburg, Germany). During a 11-month period, 1.212 drivers were tested. Both OF and urine on-site tests were compared to serum results. The following sensitivities were obtained by the oral fluid devices: THC 71% (DrugWipe(®)), 87% (Dräger), 91% (RapidSTAT); opiates 95% (Dräger), 100% (DrugWipe(®), RapidSTAT(®)); amphetamine 84% (DrugTest(®) 5000), 90% (RapidSTAT(®)), 100% (DrugTest(®) 5000); methamphetamine 50% (DrugTest(®) 5000), 100% (RapidSTAT(®)); cocaine 76% (DrugTest(®) 5000), 100% (DrugWipe(®), RapidSTAT(®)); methadone 33-63%, and benzodiazepines 0-33% (both with a low number of positives). THC specificity was especially low (29% [DrugWipe(®)] and 47% [DrugTest(®) 5000]) due to low cut-off concentrations. These data were similar to those obtained from the literature (e.g., DRUID project). The urine screening device showed a good sensitivity (THC 93%, opiate 94%, amphetamine 94%, methamphetamine 75% (low number of positives), cocaine 100%) and also an acceptable specificity (39%, 86%, 63%, 77%, 47%, respectively). Although oral fluid may be a useful matrix for on-site testing of drugged drivers, it is evident that oral fluid devices still show a lack of sensitivity (methamphetamine, benzodiazepines) and specificity (THC). Poor results for benzodiazepines may be explained by the small positive test number. Although the sensitivity for THC came out higher than compared to the literature, specificity is not yet satisfactory (only <90%). Furthermore, specificity was poor due to lowered cut-offs resulting in multiple false positive tests.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Institute of Forensic Medicine, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhems-University, Bonn, Germany. Electronic address: f.musshoff@uni-bonn.de.Institute of Forensic Medicine, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhems-University, Bonn, Germany.North-Rhine Westfalia Police Force Central Support Services Bureau, Duisburg, Germany.Institute of Forensic Medicine, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhems-University, Bonn, Germany.

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Evaluation Study
Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

24699311

Citation

Musshoff, Frank, et al. "Performance Evaluation of On-site Oral Fluid Drug Screening Devices in Normal Police Procedure in Germany." Forensic Science International, vol. 238, 2014, pp. 120-4.
Musshoff F, Hokamp EG, Bott U, et al. Performance evaluation of on-site oral fluid drug screening devices in normal police procedure in Germany. Forensic Sci Int. 2014;238:120-4.
Musshoff, F., Hokamp, E. G., Bott, U., & Madea, B. (2014). Performance evaluation of on-site oral fluid drug screening devices in normal police procedure in Germany. Forensic Science International, 238, 120-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2014.02.005
Musshoff F, et al. Performance Evaluation of On-site Oral Fluid Drug Screening Devices in Normal Police Procedure in Germany. Forensic Sci Int. 2014;238:120-4. PubMed PMID: 24699311.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Performance evaluation of on-site oral fluid drug screening devices in normal police procedure in Germany. AU - Musshoff,Frank, AU - Hokamp,Eva Groβe, AU - Bott,Ulrich, AU - Madea,Burkhard, Y1 - 2014/02/18/ PY - 2013/03/04/received PY - 2014/01/24/revised PY - 2014/02/09/accepted PY - 2014/4/5/entrez PY - 2014/4/5/pubmed PY - 2015/12/15/medline KW - Blood/serum KW - Chromatography KW - Driving under influence of drugs (DUID) KW - Immunoassay KW - On-site drug testing urine KW - Oral fluid SP - 120 EP - 4 JF - Forensic science international JO - Forensic Sci Int VL - 238 N2 - There is a need for quick and reliable methods for rapid screening of drug-influenced drivers on the roadside by police. Because the window of detection in oral fluid is more similar to blood than to urine, this matrix should therefore be appropriate for screening procedures. The performance of the Rapid STAT(®) (Mavand Solution GmbH, Mössingen, Germany), DrugWipe5/5+(®) (Securetec Detektions-Systeme AG, Brunnthal, Germany) and Dräger DrugTest(®) 5000 (Draeger Safety AG & Co. KGaA, Luebeck, Germany) on-site oral fluid devices was evaluated with random oral fluid specimens from car drivers in North Rhine-Westphalia (Germany). Additionally, some drivers were checked using an on-site urine device (DrugScreen(®), NAL von Minden, Regensburg, Germany). During a 11-month period, 1.212 drivers were tested. Both OF and urine on-site tests were compared to serum results. The following sensitivities were obtained by the oral fluid devices: THC 71% (DrugWipe(®)), 87% (Dräger), 91% (RapidSTAT); opiates 95% (Dräger), 100% (DrugWipe(®), RapidSTAT(®)); amphetamine 84% (DrugTest(®) 5000), 90% (RapidSTAT(®)), 100% (DrugTest(®) 5000); methamphetamine 50% (DrugTest(®) 5000), 100% (RapidSTAT(®)); cocaine 76% (DrugTest(®) 5000), 100% (DrugWipe(®), RapidSTAT(®)); methadone 33-63%, and benzodiazepines 0-33% (both with a low number of positives). THC specificity was especially low (29% [DrugWipe(®)] and 47% [DrugTest(®) 5000]) due to low cut-off concentrations. These data were similar to those obtained from the literature (e.g., DRUID project). The urine screening device showed a good sensitivity (THC 93%, opiate 94%, amphetamine 94%, methamphetamine 75% (low number of positives), cocaine 100%) and also an acceptable specificity (39%, 86%, 63%, 77%, 47%, respectively). Although oral fluid may be a useful matrix for on-site testing of drugged drivers, it is evident that oral fluid devices still show a lack of sensitivity (methamphetamine, benzodiazepines) and specificity (THC). Poor results for benzodiazepines may be explained by the small positive test number. Although the sensitivity for THC came out higher than compared to the literature, specificity is not yet satisfactory (only <90%). Furthermore, specificity was poor due to lowered cut-offs resulting in multiple false positive tests. SN - 1872-6283 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/24699311/Performance_evaluation_of_on_site_oral_fluid_drug_screening_devices_in_normal_police_procedure_in_Germany_ L2 - https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0379-0738(14)00066-8 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -