Validation of the Cozart Amphetamine Microplate EIA for the analysis of amphetamines in oral fluid

The purpose of this study was to determine the performance characteristics of the Cozart Amphetamine Microplate EIA for detecting amphetamine in oral fluid. Oral fluid samples were collected using the Cozart RapiScan Collection System from 135 volunteer donors from drug treatment clinics. A further 35 oral fluid samples were collected from volunteer donors who were not drug users. The samples were analyzed in the laboratory using the Cozart Amphetamine Microplate EIA and confirmed using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS). The samples were stored frozen until analysis by GC-MS. The intra-assay precision for the Cozart Amphetamine Microplate EIA for amphetamine in oral fluid over forty assays was 2.74-7.1% CV (within assay) and 3.4-7.0% CV (within day). A total of 78 samples were positive for various amphetamines and related designer drugs. The Cozart Amphetamine Microplate EIA, using a cutoff of 45 ng/ml amphetamine equivalents in neat oral fluid, had a sensitivity of 91.7+/-3.3% and a specificity of 95.9+/-1.9% versus GC-MS using a cutoff of 30 ng/ml. A series of potential adulterants of oral fluid were evaluated and shown not to alter the outcome of the test result.     

Validation of the Cozart microplate EIA for analysis of opiates in oral fluid

The purpose of this study was to determine the performance characteristics of the Cozart microplate EIA for detecting opiates in oral fluid from patients in a drug misuse treatment program. Oral fluid samples were collected using the Cozart RapiScan Collection System from 216 donors who were receiving treatment for their addiction and were monitored for drug abuse. A further 40 oral fluid samples were collected from volunteer donors who were not drug users. The samples were analyzed in the laboratory by using the Cozart microplate EIA for opiates and confirmed using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS). The samples were stored frozen until analysis by GC-MS. The intra-assay precision for the Cozart microplate oral fluid EIA for opiates over 40 assays was 0.43% to 9.13% CV (within assay) and 2.9% to 9.1% CV (within day). A total of 109 samples were positive for various opiates. The Cozart microplate EIA for opiates in oral fluid, using a cut-off of 30 ng/ml morphine equivalents in neat oral fluid, had a sensitivity of 99.1 +/- 2.1% and a specificity of 94.4 +/- 2.2% versus GC-MS. A series of potential adulterants of oral fluid were evaluated and shown not to alter the outcome of the test result.     

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.     

Performance characteristics of the Cozart RapiScan Oral Fluid Drug Testing System for opiates in comparison to ELISA and GC/MS following controlled codeine administration

Oral fluid is an interesting alternative matrix for drug testing in many environments, including law enforcement, workplace drug testing, and drug treatment facilities. Performance characteristics of the FDA-cleared, qualitative, Cozart RapiScan Opiate Oral Fluid Drug Testing System (Opiate Cozart RapiScan System or Opiate CRS) were compared to the semi-quantitative Cozart Microplate EIA Opiate Oral Fluid Kit (Opiate ELISA) and to gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS). The following oral fluid opiate cutoffs were evaluated: the GC/MS limit of quantification (LOQ) of 2.5 mg/l; 15 microg/l currently used for oral fluid testing in the United Kingdom (UK); 30 microg/l (Opiate CRS cutoff); and 40 microg/l, the proposed Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) cutoff. Subjects provided informed consent to participate in this IRB-approved research and resided on the closed research ward throughout the study. Three oral codeine doses of 60 mg/70 kg were administered over a 7-day period. After a 3-week break, subjects received three doses of 120 mg/70 kg within 7 days. Oral fluid specimens (N = 1273) were analyzed for codeine (COD), norcodeine (NCOD), morphine (MOR) and normorphine (NMOR) by GC/MS with an LOQ of 2.5 microg/l for all analytes. MOR and NMOR were not detected in any sample; 26.5% of the specimens were positive for COD and 13.7% for NCOD. Opiate CRS uses a preset, qualitative cutoff of 10 microg/l; this is equivalent to 30 microg/l in undiluted oral fluid as the oral fluid collection process involves a 1:3 dilution with buffer. Sensitivity, specificity, and efficiency of Opiate CRS compared to Opiate ELISA were 98.6, 98.1, and 98.2% at a 30 microg/l cutoff and 99.0, 96.2, and 96.6% at a 40 microg/l cutoff. Compared to the much lower GC/MS LOQ of 2.5 microg/l, sensitivity, specificity and efficiency were 66.8, 99.3 and 90.7%. Increasing the GC/MS cutoff to the current UK level yielded performance characteristics of 81.5% (sensitivity), 99.3% (specificity), and 95.4% (efficiency). Using a GC/MS cutoff identical to the preset Opiate CRS cutoff yielded sensitivity, specificity, and efficiency of 88.5, 99.2, and 97.5%, respectively. At the proposed SAMSHA confirmation cutoff of 40 microg/l, sensitivity increased with little change in specificity and efficiency (91.3% sensitivity, 98.9% specificity, and 97.5% efficiency). Oral fluid is a suitable matrix for detecting drugs of abuse. Opiate CRS, with a 30 microg/l cutoff, is sufficiently sensitive, specific and efficient for oral fluid opiate analysis, performing similarly to Opiate ELISA at the same cutoff, and having performance characteristics >91% when compared to GC/MS at the proposed SAMHSA cutoff.     

Validation of an ELISA-based screening assay for the detection of amphetamine, MDMA and MDA in blood and oral fluid

The use of amphetamine and 'ecstasy' (MDMA) has increased exponentially in many European countries since the late nineties, leading to a rapid growth in the number of clinical and forensic analyses. Therefore, a rapid screening procedure for these substances in biological specimens has become an important part of routine toxicological analysis in forensic laboratories. The objective of this study was to evaluate the Cozart amphetamine enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for the screening of plasma samples and oral fluid samples (collected with the Intercept device). Authentic plasma samples from drivers (n=360) were screened, using an 1:5-fold dilution. True positive, true negative, false positive and false negative results were determined relative to the in-house routine GC-MS analysis. Samples consisted of 144 amphetamine-only positives, 141MDMA/MDA-only positives, and 74 negatives when using the limit of quantitation as the cut-off level for confirmation (10 ng/mL). Using these results, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated and optimal cut-off values for the screening assay were calculated. Analysis showed that the ELISA is able to predict the presence of either amphetamine or *MDMA/MDA (*MDMA as its metabolite MDA) in plasma samples with 98.3% sensitivity and 100% specificity at a cut-off value of 66.5 ng/mL d-amphetamine equivalents. A similar analysis was conducted on 216 oral fluid specimens collected from a controlled double blind study. Subjects received placebo or a high (100 mg) or low (75 mg) dose of MDMA. Oral fluid samples were collected at 1.5 and 5.5h after administration. Combined results of the analysis of the high and low dose oral fluid samples indicated a screening cut-off of 51 ng/mL d-amphetamine equivalents with both a sensitivity and specificity of 98.6% (using a LC-MS/MS confirmation cut-off of 10 ng/mL). In conclusion, these data indicate that the Cozart AMP EIA plates constitute a fast and accurate screening technique for the identification of amphetamine and MDMA/MDA positive plasma samples and oral fluid specimens (collected with Intercept. It should be emphasized that method validation should be performed for each type of biological matrix.     

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.     

An evaluation of the Cozart RapiScan system as an on-site screening tool for drugs of abuse in a non-conventional biological matrix: vitreous humor

The aim of this project was to evaluate the Cozart RapiScan Oral fluid Drug Testing System as an on-site screening tool for vitreous humor samples collected during post-mortem examinations. Vitreous humor is easy to collect and as it is contained within the eye it is almost completely unaffected by post-mortem redistribution. The ability to carry out an initial drug screen on vitreous humor at the earliest stage of the death investigation process could contribute significantly to the assessment of the role drugs may have played prior to confirmation with toxicological analyses at the laboratory. Vitreous humor (n = 146) was collected from autopsy examinations (111 males and 35 females) with a specific focus on cases where death occurred following a road traffic accident or where an overdose was suspected. All samples were screened using the five-panel methadone Cozart RapiScan Cartridge with an overall positive rate of 29%. Of the positive results, 43% screened positive for benzodiazepines, 17% for cocaine, 7% for methadone and 33% for opiates. Positive samples, with the exception of benzodiazepines, and 20% of negative samples were analysed by GC/MS. This is the first reported use of this system as an on-site forensic tool in death investigation and for screening for drugs of abuse in vitreous humor. The conclusions from this study show that the Cozart RapiScan System could play an important role in obtaining information on the toxicological state of the person at the time of death.     

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.     

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.     

Simultaneous analysis of psychotropic phenylalkylamines in oral fluid by GC-MS with automated SPE and its application to legal cases

Phenylalkylamine derivatives, such as methamphetamine (MA), amphetamine (AM), 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), 3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine (MDA), phentermine (PT), fenfluramine (FFA) and phenmetrazine (PM), and ketamine (KT) are widely abused recreational or anorectic drugs in Korea and are regulated under the Controlled Substance Act in Korea. Phenylalkylamines and ketamine analysis is normally performed using both urine and hair samples but there is no established method for the simultaneous analysis of all these phenylalkylamines and ketamine in oral fluids. Oral fluid is easy to collect/handle and can provide an indication of recent drug abuse. In this study, to confirm the presence of phenylalkylamine derivatives and ketamine in oral fluid after screening with an immunoassay, an analytical method using automated solid phase extraction (SPE) and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) was developed and fully validated according to international guidelines. The applicability of the assay was demonstrated by analyzing of authentic oral fluid samples and the results of oral fluid analysis were compared with those in urine and hair to to evaluate the feasibility of oral fluid in forensic cases. The recovery of phenylalkylamines and ketamine from oral fluid collection devices was also assessed. Oral fluid specimens from 23 drug abuse suspects submitted by the police were collected using Salivette (Sarstedt, Nümbrecht, Germany), Quantisal (Immunalysis, Pomona, CA) or direct expectoration. The samples were screened using a biochip array analyzer (Evidence Investigator, Randox, Antrim, UK). For confirmation, the samples were analyzed by GC-MS in selected-ion monitoring (SIM) mode after extraction using automated SPE (RapidTrace, Zymark, MA, USA) with a mixed-mode cation exchange cartridge (CLEAN SCREEN, 130 mg/3 ml, UCT, PA, USA) and derivatization with trifluoroacetic anhydride (TFA). The results from the immunoassay were consistent with those from GC-MS. Twenty oral fluid samples gave positive results for MA, AM, PT and/or PM among the 23 cases, which gave positive results in urine and/or hair. Although large variations in the MA, AM, PT and PM concentrations were observed in three different specimens, the oral fluid specimen was useful for demonstrating phenylalkylamines and ketamine abuse as an alternative specimen for urine.     

Driving under the influence of drugs -- evaluation of analytical data of drugs in oral fluid, serum and urine, and correlation with impairment symptoms

A study was performed to acquire urine, serum and oral fluid samples in cases of suspected driving under the influence of drugs of abuse. Oral fluid was collected using a novel sampling/testing device (Dr?ger DrugTest System). The aim of the study was to evaluate oral fluid and urine as a predictor of blood samples positive for drugs and impairment symptoms. Analysis for cannabinoids, amphetamine and its derivatives, opiates and cocaine was performed in urine using the Mahsan Kombi/DOA4-test, in serum using immunoassay and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) confirmation and in oral fluid by GC-MS. Police and medical officer observations of impairment symptoms were rated and evaluated using a threshold value for the classification of driving inability. Accuracy in correlating drug detection in oral fluid and serum were >90% for all substances and also >90% in urine and serum except for THC (71.0%). Of the cases with oral fluid positive for any drug 97.1% of corresponding serum samples were also positive for at least one drug; of drug-positive urine samples this were only 82.4%. In 119 of 146 cases, impairment symptoms above threshold were observed (81.5%). Of the cases with drugs detected in serum, 19.1% appeared not impaired which were the same with drug-positive oral fluid while more persons with drug-positive urine samples appeared uninfluenced (32.7%). The data demonstrate that oral fluid is superior to urine in correlating with serum analytical data and impairment symptoms of drivers under the influence of drugs of abuse.     

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.     

Roadside oral fluid testing: comparison of the results of drugwipe 5 and drugwipe benzodiazepines on-site tests with laboratory confirmation results of oral fluid and whole blood

Drugged drivers pose a serious threat to other people in traffic as well as to themselves. Reliable oral fluid screening devices for on-site screening of drugged drivers would be both a useful and convenient means for traffic control. In this study we evaluated the appropriateness of Drugwipe 5 and Drugwipe Benzodiazepines oral fluid on-site tests for roadside drug screening. Drivers suspected of driving under the influence of drugs were screened with the Drugwipe tests. Oral fluid and whole blood samples were collected from the drivers and tested for amphetamine-type stimulant drugs, cannabis, opiates, cocaine and benzodiazepines by immunological methods, GC and GC-MS. The performance evaluations of the tests were made by comparing the results of the Drugwipe tests with laboratory GC-MS confirmation results of oral fluid or whole blood. In addition to the performance evaluations of the Drugwipe tests based on laboratory results, a questionnaire on the practical aspects of the tests was written for the police officers who performed the tests. The aim of the questionnaire was to obtain user comments on the practicality of the tests as well as the advantages and weak points of the tests. The results of the performance evaluations were: for oral fluid (sensitivity; specificity; accuracy) amphetamines (95.5%; 92.9%; 95.3%), cannabis (52.2%; 91.2%; 85.1%), cocaine (50.0%; 99.3%; 98.6%), opiates (100%; 95.8%; 95.9%), benzodiazepines (74.4%; 84.2%; 79.2%) and for whole blood accordingly, amphetamines (97.7%; 86.7%; 95.9%), cannabis (68.3%; 87.9%; 84.9%), cocaine (50.0%; 98.5%; 97.7%), opiates (87.5%; 96.9%; 96.6%) and benzodiazepines (66.7%; 87.0%; 74.4%). Although the Drugwipe 5 successfully detected amphetamine-type stimulant drugs and the police officers were quite pleased with the current features of the Drugwipe tests, improvements must still be made regarding the detection of cannabis and benzodiazepines.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Mitochondrial DNA error prophylaxis: assessing the causes of errors in the GEP'02-03 proficiency testing trial

A qualitative and quantitative analytical method was developed and validated for the determination of 49 licit and illicit drugs in oral fluid. Small oral fluid samples, volume 1mL, were collected from volunteers using a modified Omni-Sal device and the analytes were extracted from an oral fluid/buffer mixture using a single Bond Elut Certify solid phase extraction cartridge. Liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS-MS) and gas chromatography-repetitive full scan mass spectrometry (GC-MS) were used in parallel to analyze the extracts for the targeted drugs. Extracts were analyzed by GC-MS in their underivatized form and as their pentafluoropropionyl derivatives. Deuterated internal standards were used for quantification of drugs of abuse by LC-MS-MS to minimize matrix effects. Methadone-d(9) and tumoxetine were used as the internal standards for quantification of non-derivatized and derivatized analytes respectively by GC-MS. Linearity was demonstrated over the range 5-200 ng/mL and limits of detection were less than 4 ng/mL for each drug analyzed. The method demonstrated acceptable recoveries for most of the analytes and good intra- and inter-day precision. Acquisition of data by repetitive full scan GC-MS allows the addition of further analytes to the target menu.     

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 amphetamine specific assay 50%, methyl-amphetamines 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.     

Experience with urine drug testing by the Correctional Service of Canada

The Correctional Service of Canada implemented a urine drug-screening program over 10 years ago. The objective of this report is to describe the program and drug test results in this program for 1999. Offenders in Canadian federal correctional institutions and those living in the community on conditional release were subject to urine drug testing. Urine specimens were collected at correctional facilities and shipped by courier to MAXXAM Analytics Inc. laboratory. All urine specimens were analyzed for amphetamines, cannabinoids, cocaine metabolite (benzoylecgonine), opiates, phencyclidine, benzodiazepines, methyl phenidate, meperidine, pentazocine and fluoxetine by immunoassay screening (homogeneous EIA and ELISA assays) followed by GC-MS confirmation. Ethyl alcohol was analyzed when specifically requested. Alternative screening and confirmation methods with lower cut-off values were used, whenever urine specimens were dilute (creatinine <20mg/dl and specific gravity 相似文献   

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.