Oral fluid collection: the neglected variable in oral fluid testing

The potential to use oral fluid as a drug-testing specimen has been the subject of considerable scientific interest. The ease with which specimens can be collected and the potential for oral fluid (OF) drug concentrations to reflect blood-drug concentrations make it a potentially valuable specimen in clinical as well as forensic settings. However, the possible effects of the OF collection process on drug detection and quantification has often been over looked. Several studies have documented that drug-contamination of the oral cavity may skew oral fluid/blood drug ratios and confound interpretation when drugs are smoked, insufflated or ingested orally. OF pH is predicted to have an effect on the concentration of drugs in OF. However, in a controlled clinical study, the effect of pH was less than that of collection technique. Mean codeine OF concentrations in specimens collected a non-stimulating control method were 3.6 times higher than those in OF collected after acidic stimulation. Mean codeine concentrations were 50% lower than control using mechanical stimulation and 77% of control using commercial collection devices. Several factors should be considered if a commercial OF collection device is used. In vitro collection experiments demonstrated that the mean collection volume varied between devices from 0.82 to 1.86 mL. The percentage of the collected volume that could be recovered from the device varied from 18% to 83%. In vitro experiments demonstrated considerable variation in the recovery of amphetamines (16-59%), opiates (33-50%), cocaine and benzoylecgonine (61-97%), carboxy-THC (0-53%) and PCP (9-56%). Less variation in collection volume, volume recovered and drug recovery was observed intra-device. The THC stability was evaluated in a common commercial collection protocol. Samples in the collection buffer were relatively stable for 6 weeks when stored frozen. However, stability was marginal under refrigerated conditions and poor at room temperature. Very little has been published on the efficacy of using IgG concentration, or any other endogenous marker, as a measure of OF specimen validity. Preliminary rinsing experiments with moderate (50 mL and 2 x 50 mL) volumes of water did not reduce the OF IgG concentration below proposed specimen validity criteria. In summary, obvious and more subtle variables in the OF collection may have pronounced effects on OF-drug concentrations. This has rarely been acknowledged in the literature, but should to be considered in OF drug testing, interpretation of OF-drug results and future research studies.     

Development and validation of the Cozart DDS oral fluid collection device

The testing of oral fluid for drugs of abuse has increased significantly over recent years and is now commonplace in drug rehabilitation clinics, the workplace, prisons and custody suites. The global problem of identifying drugged drivers has also led to an increase in oral fluid testing at the roadside. The main requirements for the implementation of roadside drug testing are a rapid sample collection time, collection of a known sample volume and recovery of drugs from the collection device. We report here the development of the Cozart^® DDS oral fluid collector, an oral fluid collector that combines rapid and adequate sample collection with satisfactory drug recovery. Oral fluid was collected from drug users (n = 134) and drug-free individuals (n = 137), using the Cozart^® DDS oral fluid collector. The mean time for the completion of collection (full coloration of the sample presence indicator) was 34 s for drug-free individuals and 44 s for drug users. The average volume collected was 0.34 mL (n = 271). No chemical stimulant (to induce salivation) was used to achieve the collection times observed in either the drug-free or the drug-taking sample populations. Drugs were extracted from the collector using the Cozart^® DDS buffer and drug recovery was determined by Cozart^® enzyme immunoassays. The recovery studies showed that for amphetamine, Δ⁹THC, cocaine, methadone, methamphetamine, morphine and temazepam over 90% of the drug in the sample was eluted from the collector. The Cozart^® DDS oral fluid collector provides a reliable mechanism for the collection of oral fluid at the roadside that achieves the rapid collection times required.     

Evaluation of the Cozart RapiScan drug test system for opiates and cocaine in oral fluid

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficiency of the Cozart^® RapiScan (CRS) drug test system for detecting opiates and cocaine in oral fluid. Oral fluid samples were collected using the Cozart^® RapiScan collection system from 358 donors who were receiving treatment for their addiction and were monitored for drug misuse. A further 103 oral fluid samples were collected from volunteer donors who were not drug users. The samples were analyzed in the laboratory using the two-panel Cozart^® RapiScan cartridge for opiates and cocaine and confirmed using gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC–MS). The samples were stored frozen at −20 °C until analysis by GC–MS. The overall accuracy of the CRS for both opiates and cocaine was 100%. Samples spiked at 50% above and below the cut-off consistently gave negative and positive results respectively. A total of 88 samples were positive for various opiates and 111 samples were positive for cocaine and/or its metabolites. The CRS for opiates and cocaine in oral fluid, using a cut-off of 30 ng/mL morphine or benzoylecgonine equivalents in neat oral fluid, had overall efficiencies of 98% and 99%, respectively, versus GC–MS. A series of potential adulterants of oral fluid were evaluated and shown not to alter the outcome of the test result.     

High prevalence of 6-acetylmorphine in morphine-positive oral fluid specimens

Identification of 6-acetylmorphine, a specific metabolite of heroin, is considered to be definitive evidence of heroin use. Although 6-acetylmorphine has been identified in oral fluid following controlled heroin administration, no prevalence data is available for oral fluid specimens collected in the workplace. We evaluated the prevalence of positive test results for 6-acetylmorphine in 77,218 oral fluid specimens collected over a 10-month period (January-October 2001) from private workplace testing programs. Specimens were analyzed by Intercept immunoassay (cutoff concentration=30 ng/ml) and confirmed by GC-MS-MS (cutoff concentrations=30 ng/ml for morphine and codeine, and 3 ng/ml for 6-acetylmorphine). Only morphine-positive oral fluid specimens were tested by GC-MS-MS for 6-acetylmorphine. A total of 48 confirmed positive morphine results were identified. An additional 107 specimens were confirmed for codeine only. Of the 48 morphine-positive specimens, 32 (66.7%) specimens were positive for 6-acetylmorphine. Mean concentrations (+/-S.E.M.) of morphine, 6-acetylmorphine and codeine in the 32 specimens were 755+/-201, 416+/-168 and 196+/-36 ng/ml, respectively. Concentrations of 6-acetylmorphine in oral fluid ranged from 3 to 4095 ng/ml. The mean ratio (+/-S.E.M.) of 6-acetylmorphine/morphine was 0.33+/-0.06. It is suggested that, based on controlled dose studies of heroin administration, ratios >1 of 6-acetylmorphine/morphine in oral fluid are consistent with heroin use within the last hour before specimen collection. The confirmation of 6-acetylmorphine in 66.7% of morphine-positive oral fluid specimens indicates that oral fluid testing for opioids may offer advantages over urine in workplace drug testing programs and in testing drugged drivers for recent heroin use.     

Confirmation by LC–MS of drugs in oral fluid obtained from roadside testing

The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of two current on-site oral fluid (OF) drug detection devices (OraLab and Dräger), as part of the Spanish participation in the Roadside Testing Assessment Project (ROSITA Project). The study was done in collaboration with the Spanish Traffic Police, in Galicia (NW Spain), during 2004 and 2005. A total of 468 drivers selected at the police controls agreed to participate through informed consent. In addition, saliva samples were collected and sent to the laboratory to confirm the on-site results. For this purpose, two different analytical liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry (LC–MS) methods were used to detect 11 drugs or metabolites in a 300 μL sample. Simultaneous analysis of morphine, 6-acetylmorphine, amphetamine, methamphetamine, MDA, MDMA, MDEA, MBDB, cocaine and benzoylecgonine was carried out using 100 μL of oral fluid, after an automated solid phase extraction. A different LC–MS method was performed to detect Δ⁹-THC in 200 μL of oral fluid using liquid–liquid extraction with hexane at pH 6. Both methods were fully validated, including linearity (1–250 ng/mL, 2–250 ng/mL) recovery (>50%), within-day and between-day precision (CV < 15%), accuracy (mean relative error < 15%), limit of detection (0.5 and 1 ng/mL), quantitation (1 and 2 ng/mL) and matrix effect. All of the positive cases and a random selection of 30% of the negatives were analyzed for confirmation analysis. Good results (sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value and negative predictive value > 90%) were obtained for cocaine and opiates by OraLab, and for cocaine by Dräger. However, the results for the other compounds could be improved for both detection devices. Differences in the ease of use and in the interpretation mode (visual or instrumental) were observed.     

Drugs in oral fluid in randomly selected drivers

There were 13,176 roadside drug tests performed in the first year of the random drug-testing program conducted in the state of Victoria. Drugs targeted in the testing were methamphetamines and Δ⁹-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). On-site screening was conducted by the police using DrugWipe^®, while the driver was still in the vehicle and if positive, a second test on collected oral fluid, using the Rapiscan^®, was performed in a specially outfitted “drug bus” located adjacent to the testing area. Oral fluid on presumptive positive cases was sent to the laboratory for confirmation with limits of quantification of 5, 5, and 2 ng/mL for methamphetamine (MA), methylenedioxy-methamphetamine (MDMA), and THC, respectively. Recovery experiments conducted in the laboratory showed quantitative recovery of analytes from the collector. When oral fluid could not be collected, blood was taken from the driver and sent to the laboratory for confirmation. These roadside tests gave 313 positive cases following GC–MS confirmation. These comprised 269, 118, and 87 cases positive to MA, MDMA, and THC, respectively. The median oral concentrations (undiluted) of MA, MDMA, and THC was 1136, 2724, and 81 ng/mL. The overall drug positive rate was 2.4% of the screened population. This rate was highest in drivers of cars (2.8%). The average age of drivers detected with a positive drug reading was 28 years. Large vehicle (trucks over 4.5 t) drivers were older; on average at 38 years. Females accounted for 19% of all positives, although none of the positive truck drivers were female. There was one false positive to cannabis when the results of both on-site devices were considered and four to methamphetamines.     

Review: Pharmacokinetics of illicit drugs in oral fluid

This article reviews studies that have measured drug concentrations in oral fluid following controlled dosing regimens. A total of 23 studies have been identified over the last 15 years. These show that the amphetamines including designer amphetamines, cocaine, cannabis and cocaine are quickly found in oral fluid following dosing and usually have similar time-courses to that in plasma. Following common doses peak oral fluid concentrations exceed 0.1 μg/mL and often even 1 μg/mL. The drug concentration will depend on whether a dilution step occurs with buffer as part of the sampling procedure. The uses of collectors that stimulate oral fluid usually reduce the drug concentration compared to a non-stimulated manner. This reduction will not disadvantage the recipient since it will potentially reduce the detectablity of drug in oral fluid compared to non-stimulated collections. Only one recent study has been reported for a benzodiazepine. This showed nanogram per milliliter concentrations for flunitrazepam. More studies are required for benzodiazepines and indeed for other drugs, particularly in multiple drug situations and where disease may affect the pharmacokinetics of drugs.     

The toxicological challenges in the European research project DRUID

Within the epidemiological studies of the integrated European research project DRUID (Driving Under the Influence of Drugs, alcohol and medicines), 13 laboratories from across Europe will analyse whole blood, oral fluid (OF) or urine from the general driving population and injured drivers. To ensure the comparability of toxicological results from the different studies, the collection of samples, analytical methods, target analytes and analytical cut-offs have been standardized for all laboratories involved.Target analytes were selected based on suspected impairing effects and prevalence. Twenty-three drugs are included in the ‘core list’ for which analysis is mandatory: ethanol, amphetamine, MDMA, MDA, MDEA, methamphetamine, cocaine, benzoylecgonine, THC, THC-COOH, 6-acetylmorphine, diazepam, flunitrazepam, alprazolam, clonazepam, oxazepam, nordiazepam, zolpidem, zopiclone, lorazepam, morphine, codeine and methadone. Additionally, 28 other drugs will be analysed in 1–12 countries.All whole blood samples are collected in glass Vacutainer-type tubes containing sodium fluoride and potassium oxalate. Based on a comparative study of 10 collection devices, it was decided to collect oral fluid using the Statsure™ device. Since only a small sample volume is available (5–10 mL blood and 1 mL oral fluid), all laboratories have to develop methods for simultaneous detection of the target analytes. All laboratories agreed to use either LC–MS–MS or GC–MS in SIM-mode. Proficiency testing for both blood and oral fluid are organized.Analytical cut-offs were established for the core list based on those used in ROSITA-2, SAMHSA cut-off values for oral fluid and recommendations from an expert meeting in Talloires.Because of practical and legal considerations, different sample types are used: whole blood, serum/plasma and oral fluid. Literature on correlation between analyte concentrations in these body fluids is limited, which makes several comparisons of study results difficult: (1) comparison of epidemiological (blood, oral fluid and urine) and experimental studies (serum and plasma) performed in DRUID and (2) comparisons within the epidemiological studies themselves (most countries: oral fluid in road-side survey, blood in hospital studies).A combination of literature findings, new findings from DRUID and semi-quantitative results will likely have to be used to solve these problems.     

Analysis of Δ-tetrahydrocannabinol in oral fluid samples using solid-phase extraction and high-performance liquid chromatography–electrospray ionization mass spectrometry

An analytical method using solid-phase extraction (SPE) and high-performance liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry (LC–MS) has been developed and validated for the confirmation of Δ⁹-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in oral fluid samples. Oral fluid was extracted using Bond Elut LRC-Certify solid-phase extraction columns (10 cm³, 300 mg) and elution performed with n-hexane/ethyl acetate. Quantitation made use of the selected ion-recording mode (SIR) using the most abundant characteristic ion [THC + H⁺], m/z 315.31 and the fragment ion, m/z 193.13 for confirmation, and m/z 318.00 for the protonated internal standard, [d₃-THC + H⁺]. The method proved to be precise for THC, in terms of both intra-day and inter-day analyses, with coefficients of variation less than 10%, and the calculated extraction efficiencies for THC ranged from 76 to 83%. Calibration standards spiked with THC between 2 and 100 ng/mL showed a linear relationship (r² = 0.999). The method presented was applied to the oral fluid samples taken from the volunteers during the largest music event in Portugal, named Rock in Rio-Lisboa. Oral fluid was collected from 40 persons by expectoration and with Salivette^®. In 55% of the samples obtained by expectorating, THC was detected with concentration ranges from 1033 to 6552 ng/mL and in 45% of cases THC was detected at concentrations between 51 and 937 ng/mL. However, using Salivette^® collection, 26 of the 40 cases had an undetectable THC.     

The recovery of illicit drugs from oral fluid sampling devices

Testing for drugs in oral fluid is a convenient procedure for determining recent drug use. A number of issues are still to be resolved and this paper investigates the effects of storage systems on drug stability and recovery using three different collection devices supplied by Cozart, Immunalysis and Microgenics (third party). Drugs were analysed using a range of immunoassay systems followed by MS confirmation and quantitation. The reproducibility of the weight of specimen collected was excellent (CV<10%) for the three collection devices tested. Of the three systems studied, only the Cozart product gave acceptable recovery of THC from drug-spiked oral fluid. A combination of Cozart, Immunalysis and Diagnostix immunoassays with the Cozart collection system gave the most sensitive and discriminating screening assays for the drugs studied, namely THC, benzodiazepines, methamphetamine and morphine. Storage at either 5 degrees C or room temperature had no significant effect on drug recoveries.     

A comparison between the Intercept Oral Fluid Collection Device® and urinalysis among Baltimore City probationers

Few studies compared oral fluid (OF) analysis to laboratory urinalysis (UA) in real-world criminal justice environments, and no studies had collected survey data, from either specimen providers or specimen collectors, about the overall OF collection experience. In the most comprehensive toxicological comparison study conducted to date, urine and OF specimens were collected from a sample of 223 adult probationers in Baltimore City, Maryland, between March and May 2004. In addition, probationers and probation staff were surveyed about the OF collection experience. With confirmed UA as the reference standard, the Intercept Oral Specimen Collection Device® (Intercept) was 100 percent sensitive and 99 percent specific for benzodiazepines, 92 percent sensitive and 96 percent specific for cocaine, 77 percent sensitive and 96 percent specific for opiates, 39 percent sensitive and 98 percent specific for marijuana, and 75 percent sensitive and 91 percent specific for the detection of at least one drug. Seventy-two percent of the probationers and 88 percent of the probation staff rated the Intercept experience better than the collection of urine specimens. Implications for criminal justice policy and research are discussed.     

Analysis of cannabis in oral fluid specimens by GC-MS with automatic SPE

Methamphetamine (MA) is the most commonly abused drug in Korea, followed by cannabis. Traditionally, MA analysis is carried out on both urine and hair samples and cannabis analysis in urine samples only. Despite the fact that oral fluid has become increasingly popular as an alternative specimen in the field of driving under the influence of drugs (DUID) and work place drug testing, its application has not been expanded to drug analysis in Korea. Oral fluid is easy to collect and handle and can provide an indication of recent drug abuse.In this study, we present an analytical method using GC–MS to determine tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and its main metabolite 11-nor-Δ⁹-tetrahydrocannabinol-9-carboxylic acid (THC-COOH) in oral fluid. The validated method was applied to oral fluid samples collected from drug abuse suspects and the results were compared with those in urine. The stability of THC and THC-COOH in oral fluid stored in different containers was also investigated.Oral fluid specimens from 12 drug abuse suspects, submitted by the police, were collected by direct expectoration. The samples were screened with microplate ELISA. For confirmation they were extracted using automated SPE with mixed-mode cation exchange cartridge, derivatized and analyzed by GC-MS using selective ion monitoring (SIM).The concentrations of THC and THC-COOH in oral fluid showed a large variation and the results from oral fluid and urine samples from cannabis abusers did not show any correlation. Thus, detailed information about time interval between drug use and sample collection is needed to interpret the oral fluid results properly. In addition, further investigation about the detection time window of THC and THC-COOH in oral fluid is required to substitute oral fluid for urine in drug testing.     

Evaluation of the Cozart RapiScan drug test system for opiates and cocaine in oral fluid

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficiency of the Cozart RapiScan (CRS) drug test system for detecting opiates and cocaine in oral fluid. Oral fluid samples were collected using the Cozart RapiScan collection system from 358 donors who were receiving treatment for their addiction and were monitored for drug misuse. A further 103 oral fluid samples were collected from volunteer donors who were not drug users. The samples were analyzed in the laboratory using the two-panel Cozart RapiScan cartridge for opiates and cocaine and confirmed using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS). The samples were stored frozen at -20 degrees C until analysis by GC-MS. The overall accuracy of the CRS for both opiates and cocaine was 100%. Samples spiked at 50% above and below the cut-off consistently gave negative and positive results respectively. A total of 88 samples were positive for various opiates and 111 samples were positive for cocaine and/or its metabolites. The CRS for opiates and cocaine in oral fluid, using a cut-off of 30 ng/mL morphine or benzoylecgonine equivalents in neat oral fluid, had overall efficiencies of 98% and 99%, respectively, versus GC-MS. A series of potential adulterants of oral fluid were evaluated and shown not to alter the outcome of the test result.     

Oral fluid drug tests: Effects of adulterants and foodstuffs

An on-site oral fluid drug screen, Oratect^®, was used to investigate the effects of adulterants and foodstuffs on oral fluid test results. Common foods, beverages, food ingredients, cosmetics and hygienic products were demonstrated not to cause false positive results when tested 30 min after their consumption. Evaluations of two commercial oral fluid adulterants, “Clear Choice^® Fizzy Flush™” and “Test’in™ Spit n Kleen Mouthwash” suggest their mechanism of action is the clearing of residual drugs of abuse compounds through rinsing of the oral cavity. They do not directly destroy the drug compounds or change the pH of the oral fluid. It is also suggested that a common mouthwash would perform similar action.     

Proficiency testing (external quality assessment) of drug detection in oral fluid

Eighteen external quality assessment (proficiency testing) samples were prepared from client specimens collected with the Intercept^® oral fluid collection device and by spiking drug-free oral fluid. Samples were circulated in pairs at quarterly intervals to 13 UK and USA based laboratories for analysis by a panel of OraSure micro-plate Intercept^® enzyme immunoassay kits and hyphenated mass spectrophotometric techniques. During the survey, there was a single case of non-specificity in a false report for methadone. The major errors were of lack of sensitivity relative to the concentration thresholds specified for the immunoassays. The sensitivity for overall ‘present’/‘not found’ reports calculated as true positives/(true positives + false negatives) were for the amfetamine specific assay 50%, methyl-amfetamines 93%, barbiturates 64%, cannabinoids 73%, cocaine and metabolites 100%, benzodiazepines 69%, methadone 95%, opiates 79% (opiates excluding oxycodone 93%), phencyclidine 93% and human gamma-globulin 97%. A small number of the sensitivity errors were attributable to errors in chromatographic confirmation techniques.     

Stability of Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in oral fluid using the Quantisal collection device

This article details the stability of Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in oral fluid during collection, extraction and storage. Oral fluid is being increasingly used as the specimen of choice for the detection of drug use in various applications. Studies to determine the extraction efficiency of THC from the collection buffer and stability under various laboratory storage conditions were carried out. THC was extracted from the collection pad and buffer with an average efficiency over 80% and was stable in Quantisal oral fluid extraction buffer when stored at refrigerated temperatures. Fluorescent lighting caused THC losses of over 50%, however the presence of the pad reduced the loss. In the dark, the loss of THC at room temperature was approximately 20% over 14 days. When stored with the serum separators in place, THC losses were significant. After 3 days, THC concentration was reduced by almost 30%, and after 14 days, 60% of the drug was lost and the losses were not concentration dependent.     

Quantitative analysis of multiple illicit drugs in preserved oral fluid by solid-phase extraction and liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry

We present a validated method for the simultaneous analysis of basic drugs which comprises a sample clean-up step, using mixed-mode solid-phase extraction (SPE), followed by LC–MS/MS analysis. Deuterated analogues for all of the analytes of interest were used for quantitation. The applied HPLC gradient ensured the elution of all the drugs examined within 14 min and produced chromatographic peaks of acceptable symmetry. Selectivity of the method was achieved by a combination of retention time, and two precursor-product ion transitions for the non-deuterated analogues. Oral fluid was collected with the Intercept^®, a FDA approved sampling device that is used on a large scale in the US for workplace drug testing. However, this collection system contains some ingredients (stabilizers and preservatives) that can cause substantial interferences, e.g. ion suppression or enhancement during LC–MS/MS analysis, in the absence of suitable sample pre-treatment. The use of the SPE was demonstrated to be highly effective and led to significant decreases in the interferences. Extraction was found to be both reproducible and efficient with recoveries >76% for all of the analytes. Furthermore, the processed samples were demonstrated to be stable for 48 h, except for cocaine and benzoylecgonine, where a slight negative trend was observed, but did not compromise the quantitation. In all cases the method was linear over the range investigated (2–200 μg/L) with an excellent intra-assay and inter-assay precision (coefficients of variation <10% in most cases) for QC samples spiked at a concentration of 4, 12 and 100 μg/L. Limits of quantitation were estimated to be at 2 μg/L with limits of detection ranging from 0.2 to 0.5 μg/L, which meets the requirements of SAMHSA for oral fluid testing in the workplace. The method was subsequently applied to the analysis of Intercept^® samples collected at the roadside by the police, and to determine MDMA and MDA levels in oral fluid samples from a controlled study.     

The impact of fentanyl on DUIDs and traffic fatalities: Blood and oral fluid data

Fentanyl has emerged as the most prolific drug in the ongoing opioid epidemic and has greatly impacted traffic safety in recent years. This study aimed to evaluate fentanyl prevalence and concentrations in blood and oral fluid in driving under the influence of drugs (DUID) cases in three different regions (i.e., Alabama, Orange County, CA, and Houston, TX) from 2017 to 2022. Furthermore, traffic fatalities were evaluated for Alabama and Orange County, CA. Fentanyl positivity in DUID and traffic fatalities increased for most years in this study. In Alabama, the prevalence of fentanyl DUID cases increased 4-fold in 2022 compared to 2017. Orange County's increase from 2017 to 2022 was 14-fold. In Houston, the increase was approximately 2-fold from 2019 to 2022. The greatest increase for all laboratories coincided with the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2022, the median fentanyl DUID blood concentrations were 4.7, 11, and 4.7 ng/mL in Alabama, Orange County, and Houston, respectively. Most fentanyl cases were polydrug cases (≥90%). Methamphetamine, THC, and alprazolam were the most frequently detected drugs in combination with fentanyl. Alabama has collected oral fluid and blood in DUID cases since 2018. The detection of fentanyl in oral fluid was comparable to blood. However, 59% and 8.7% of fentanyl-positive cases had concentrations of >20 ng/mL in oral fluid and blood, respectively. Therefore, oral fluid as an alternative or supplemental specimen to blood is an attractive approach for fentanyl in DUID cases. This study contributes to understanding recent fentanyl trends and their impact on traffic safety.     

Comparison of point-of-collection screening of drugs of abuse in oral fluid with a laboratory-based urine screen.

Oral fluid is becoming increasingly useful for the detection of drugs, since it is a non-invasive specimen to collect and, because collection is directly observed, it is difficult to adulterate. A point-of-collection (POCT) oral fluid drug analysis kit has been developed for use in many drug testing situations. This paper summarizes the results of field evaluations of the ORALscreen System for screening of drugs in oral fluid. The ORALscreen System consists of an oral fluid collection device and a test device containing a lateral flow membrane immunoassay system. Paired samples (oral fluid and urine) were collected from drug users and the results from the ORALscreen POCT system were compared to urine screening results conducted in a licensed laboratory. The results demonstrate that the ORALscreen System has excellent percent agreement with the laboratory-based urine screening test results for the detection of cocaine and opiates through 2.5-3 days following drug use, respectively. Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) was detected by ORALscreen on the day of use and 1 day after use. Good correlation between urine and oral fluid screening results was observed for the methamphetamine positive samples; however, the number of days following drug use was not determined.     

Detection of drugs of abuse in simultaneously collected oral fluid, urine and blood from Norwegian drug drivers

Blood and urine samples are collected when the Norwegian police apprehend a person suspected of driving under the influence of drugs other than alcohol. Impairment is judged from the findings in blood. In our routine samples, urine is analysed if morphine is detected in blood to differentiate between ingestion of heroin, morphine or codeine and also in cases where the amount of blood is too low to perform both screening and quantification analysis. In several cases, the collection of urine might be time consuming and challenging. The aim of this study was to investigate if drugs detected in blood were found in oral fluid and if interpretation of opiate findings in oral fluid is as conclusive as in urine. Blood, urine and oral fluid samples were collected from 100 drivers suspected of drugged driving. Oral fluid and blood were screened using LC-MS/MS methods and urine by immunological methods. Positive findings in blood and urine were confirmed with chromatographic methods. The analytical method for oral fluid included 25 of the most commonly abused drugs in Norway and some metabolites. The analysis showed a good correlation between the findings in urine and oral fluid for amphetamines, cocaine/benzoylecgonine, methadone, opiates, zopiclone and benzodiazepines including the 7-amino-benzodiazepines. Cocaine and the heroin marker 6-monoacetylmorphine (6-MAM) were more frequently detected in oral fluid than in urine. Drug concentrations above the cut-off values were found in both samples of oral fluid and urine in 15 of 22 cases positive for morphine, in 18 of 20 cases positive for codeine and in 19 of 26 cases positive for 6-MAM. The use of cannabis was confirmed by detecting THC in oral fluid and THC-COOH in urine. In 34 of 46 cases the use of cannabis was confirmed both in oral fluid and urine. The use of cannabis was confirmed by a positive finding in only urine in 11 cases and in only oral fluid in one case. All the drug groups detected in blood were also found in oral fluid. Since all relevant drugs detected in blood were possible to find in oral fluid and the interpretation of the opiate findings in oral fluid was more conclusive than in urine, oral fluid might replace urine in driving under the influence cases. The fast and easy sampling is time saving and less intrusive for the drivers.