Reliability of roadside oral fluid testing devices for ∆9‐tetrahydrocannabinol (∆9‐THC) detection
Juliana Nichterwitz Scherer,Mailton Vasconcelos,Carolina Silveira Dalanhol,Bruna Govoni,Bruno Pereira dos Santos,Gabriela Ramos Borges,Giovanna Cristiano de Gouveia,Patrícia Pacheco Viola,Renato Luiz Romera Carlson,Aline Franco Martins,Jose Luiz Costa,Marilyn A. Huestis,Flavio Pechansky
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/dta.3669
2024-03-07
Drug Testing and Analysis
Abstract:The use of cannabis by drivers is highly reported in epidemiological studies. In this study, authors evaluated the sensitivity, specificity, efficiency, and predictive values of four different point‐of‐collection devices for THC detection in oral fluid at different confirmation cutoffs aiming their application in traffic enforcement. Oral fluid samples of 8945 drivers were screened. There were great differences in reliability parameters between devices; the implication of these results in traffic enforcement are presented and discussed in the paper. Driving under the influence of cannabis (DUIC) is increasing worldwide, and cannabis is the most prevalent drug after alcohol in impaired driving cases, emphasizing the need for a reliable traffic enforcement strategy. ∆9‐tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) detection in oral fluid has great potential for identifying recent cannabis use; however, additional data are needed on the sensitivities, specificities, and efficiencies of different oral fluid devices for detecting cannabinoids at the roadside by police during routine traffic safety enforcement efforts. At the roadside, 8945 oral fluid THC screening tests were performed with four devices: AquilaScan®, Dräger DrugTest®, WipeAlyser Reader®, and Druglizer®. A total of 530 samples screened positive for THC (5.9%) and were analyzed by liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry at multiple cutoff concentrations (2 ng/mL, 10 ng/mL, and manufacturers' recommended device cutoffs) to investigate device performance. Results varied substantially, with sensitivities of 0%–96.8%, specificities of 89.8%–98.5%, and efficiencies of 84.3%–97.8%. The Dräger DrugTest® outperformed the other devices with a 96.8% sensitivity, 97.1% specificity, and 97.0% efficiency at a 5‐ng/mL LC–MS/MS confirmation cutoff. The WipeAlyser Reader® had good performance with a 91.4% sensitivity, 97.2% specificity, and 96.4% efficiency. AquilaScan® and Druglizer® had unacceptable performance for cannabinoid detection, highlighted by sensitivity <13%. The choice of roadside oral fluid testing device must offer good analytical performance for cannabinoids because of its high prevalence of use and impact on road safety.
pharmacology & pharmacy,biochemical research methods,chemistry, analytical