1
|
Wennberg E, Windle SB, Filion KB, Thombs BD, Gore G, Benedetti A, Grad R, Ells C, Eisenberg MJ. Roadside screening tests for cannabis use: A systematic review. Heliyon 2023; 9:e14630. [PMID: 37064483 PMCID: PMC10102219 DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e14630] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/04/2022] [Revised: 12/20/2022] [Accepted: 03/13/2023] [Indexed: 04/04/2023] Open
Abstract
As more countries legalize recreational cannabis, roadside screening programs are imperative to detect and deter driving under the influence of cannabis. This systematic review evaluated roadside screening tests for cannabis use. We searched six databases (inception-March 2020) and grey literature sources for primary studies evaluating test characteristics of roadside screening tests for cannabis use compared to laboratory tests for cannabinoids in blood or oral fluid. The synthesis was focused on sensitivity and specificity of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) detection. 101 studies were included. Oral fluid tests were higher in specificity and lower in sensitivity compared to urine tests when evaluated against blood laboratory tests. Oral fluid tests were higher in sensitivity and similar in specificity compared to observational tests when evaluated against blood and oral fluid laboratory tests. Sensitivity was variable among oral fluid tests; two instrumented immunoassays (Draeger DrugTest 5000 [5 ng/mL THC cut-off] and Alere DDS 2 Mobile Test System) appeared to perform best, but definitive conclusions could not be drawn due to imprecise estimates. Specificities were similar. Overall, oral fluid tests showed the most promise for use in roadside screening for blood THC levels over legal limits; their continued development and testing are warranted. Urine tests are generally inadvisable, and observational tests require sensitivity improvements.
Collapse
|
2
|
Scherer JN, Fiorentin TR, Borille BT, Pasa G, Sousa TRV, von Diemen L, Limberger RP, Pechansky F. Reliability of point-of-collection testing devices for drugs of abuse in oral fluid: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Pharm Biomed Anal 2017; 143:77-85. [PMID: 28577420 DOI: 10.1016/j.jpba.2017.05.021] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/09/2017] [Revised: 05/06/2017] [Accepted: 05/11/2017] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
Abstract
Point-of-collection testing (POCT) devices for drugs of abuse are used to screen for the presence of psychoactive substances (PAS) in different types of settings and environments. However, these quick and advantageous tools also present disadvantages, including low-reliability measures in comparison to chromatographic assays. Therefore, this article presents a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies evaluating the reliability of measurements of PAS detection in oral fluid using POCT devices. The reliability measures for detection of the five most important drug classes - cocaine, amphetamines, benzodiazepines, cannabinoids and opioids, are reported. The article also presents a subgroup analysis considering the reliability estimates for the different POCT devices that were evaluated by the studies contemplated in the review. A discussion considering the strengths and limitations of POCT techniques was performed in order to guide policymakers, traffic agents and other professionals who also conduct such tests. The use of POCT devices often involves legal and moral aspects of the subjects tested, which demands critical evaluation of these devices before they are implemented in different settings.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Juliana Nichterwitz Scherer
- Center for Drug and Alcohol Research and Collaborating Center on Alcohol and Drugs - HCPA/SENAD, Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Rua Professor Álvar Alvim, 400, 90420-020, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil.
| | - Taís Regina Fiorentin
- Postgraduate Program in Pharmaceutical Sciences, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Av. Ipiranga, 2752, 90610-000, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil
| | - Bruna Tassi Borille
- Postgraduate Program in Pharmaceutical Sciences, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Av. Ipiranga, 2752, 90610-000, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil
| | - Graciela Pasa
- Center for Drug and Alcohol Research and Collaborating Center on Alcohol and Drugs - HCPA/SENAD, Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Rua Professor Álvar Alvim, 400, 90420-020, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil
| | - Tanara Rosangela Vieira Sousa
- Center for Drug and Alcohol Research and Collaborating Center on Alcohol and Drugs - HCPA/SENAD, Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Rua Professor Álvar Alvim, 400, 90420-020, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil
| | - Lisia von Diemen
- Center for Drug and Alcohol Research and Collaborating Center on Alcohol and Drugs - HCPA/SENAD, Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Rua Professor Álvar Alvim, 400, 90420-020, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil
| | - Renata Pereira Limberger
- Postgraduate Program in Pharmaceutical Sciences, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Av. Ipiranga, 2752, 90610-000, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil
| | - Flavio Pechansky
- Center for Drug and Alcohol Research and Collaborating Center on Alcohol and Drugs - HCPA/SENAD, Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Rua Professor Álvar Alvim, 400, 90420-020, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil
| |
Collapse
|