Implementation of the first comprehensive state oral fluid drug testing program for roadside screening and laboratory testing in DUID cases-A 5-year review

Oral fluid (OF) is a valuable specimen for driving under the influence of drugs (DUID) applications. This study demonstrates the implementation of the first comprehensive OF drug testing program in the United States, including approved roadside screening OF devices for law enforcement and validated liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS-MS) confirmation methods. Three roadside OF screening devices were evaluated: the Dräger DrugTest® 5000, Abbott SoToxa®, and Randox Evidence MultiSTAT™. Two qualitative LC-MS-MS confirmation methods were validated per ASB Standard 036. The first method utilized an automated dispersive pipette extraction extraction using Integra and Hamilton STARlet platforms for drugs of abuse. The second method used a liquid-liquid extraction to detect cannabinoids. The prevalence of drugs in blood and OF was monitored over 5 years of casework. Calibration curves were analyzed with each batch to monitor OF concentrations for research purposes. Three roadside OF screening devices were deemed fit for purpose. Devices demonstrated appropriate sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy above 80% for targeted drugs except for benzodiazepines (DrugTest® 5000) and amphetamine (SoToxa®). The validated LC-MS-MS OF confirmation methods met the National Safety Council-recommended cutoffs for 18/21 (86%) of the targets. Over 5 years of casework, THC and cocaine were detected at a positivity rate of 90% and 97% in OF versus 75% and 44% in blood, respectively. OF:blood ratios exceeded unity for parent drugs. Median concentrations of THC in OF and blood were 31 and 3.5 ng/mL, respectively. OF is a viable alternative or supplemental specimen for DUID investigations. Collecting OF close to the driving event increases the opportunity to identify pharmacologically active substances, and when combined with blood analysis results, an elevated OF:blood ratio provides valuable information for DUID investigation purposes.

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.

Correlation between oral fluid and blood THC concentration: A systematic review and discussion of policy implications

Cannabis is the second most commonly used impairing substance by drivers, after alcohol. As more countries legalize cannabis, there is concern that cannabis-impaired driving will increase. In many countries, police use roadside devices to test for oral fluid THC (the primary psychotropic component in cannabis) to identify drivers who used cannabis; including in countries with non-zero per se limits for THC in blood. This practice is questioned as previous research demonstrates a poor correlation between oral fluid and blood THC concentrations at the individual level. We conducted a meta-analysis to identify all research that compared oral fluid with blood THC levels. We obtained individual-level data from study authors and analyzed pooled individual-level data to calculate sensitivity and specificity of oral fluid THC (at various cut-off values) to detect blood THC above different concentration limits. Finally, we explored practical implications of using oral fluid THC in an enforcement context. Our review found THC concentrations measured in over 18,000 paired samples of oral fluid and blood. We found a good correlation between the presence of THC in oral fluid and presence of THC in blood (sensitivity = 71.2%, specificity = 97.7%). However oral fluid THC, at commonly used cut-off values, is less sensitive and less specific when used as a biomarker to detect people with blood THC concentrations above commonly used per se limits (such as 5 ng/mL). As such, there will be a large number of "false positive" tests if oral fluid THC testing were used as a biomarker for "illegal" THC concentrations in randomly selected drivers. We argue that the adverse implications of false positive oral fluid THC tests in this context outweigh the possible road safety benefits and we recommend against oral fluid THC screening in randomly selected drivers in countries with non-zero per se limits for blood THC. In contrast, oral fluid THC tests appear to be useful for investigating "high-risk" drivers who come to police attention because of evidence of impairment.

Determination of cannabinoids in urine, oral fluid and hair samples after repeated intake of CBD-rich cannabis by smoking

Cannabidiol prevalent (CBD-rich) cannabis derivatives are increasingly popular and widely available on the market as replacement of THC, tobacco substitutes or therapeutics for various health conditions. In this paper, we evaluate the impact of a repeated CBD-rich cannabis intake on levels of cannabinoids in biological samples. Urine, oral fluid and hair (pubic and head) samples were obtained from a naive user during a 26-day smoking period of one 250-mg CBD-rich cannabis joint/day containing 6.0% cannabidiol (CBD; 15mg) and 0.2% delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC; 0.5mg). In total, 35 urine, 8 oral fluid and 4hair sample were collected. Cannabinoids concentrations were quantified by a UHPLC/MSⁿ technique. The results suggested that the repeated exposure to CBD-rich cannabis (containing small amounts of THC) can generate positive results in biological samples. Urinary concentrations of 11-nor-9-carboxy-delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC-COOH) were quantitatively detected after 8 days from the smoking start and exceeded the 15ng/mL cut-off limit on day-15 even in the urine sample collected 12h after the last intake. In the oral fluid collected on day-26, no cannabinoids were found before the cannabis intake, thus excluding accumulation, while THC was detectable up to 3h after the cannabis intake, at concentrations progressively decreasing from about 18 to 6ng/mL. Hair samples collected one week after the end of the study turned out negative for THC and THC-COOH, suggesting that this matrix is suitable to discriminate the chronic consumption of CBD-rich cannabis from THC-prevalent products. The obtained findings are relevant for the interpretations of cannabinoids levels in biological fluids, also in light of the legal implications of a positive result.

Oral Fluid and Drug Impairment: Pairing Toxicology with Drug Recognition Expert Observations

According to the Governors Highway Safety Association, drugs are detected more frequently in fatally injured drivers than alcohol. Due to the variety of drugs (prescribed and/or illicit) and their various physiological effects on the body, it is difficult for law enforcement to detect/prosecute drug impairment. While blood and urine are typical biological specimens used to test for drugs, oral fluid is an attractive alternative matrix. Drugs are incorporated into oral fluid by oral contamination (chewing or smoking) or from the bloodstream. Oral fluid is non-invasive and easy to collect without the need for a trained professional to obtain the sample, unlike urine or blood. This study analyzes paired oral fluid and urine with drug recognition expert (DRE) observations. Authentic oral fluid samples (n = 20) were collected via Quantisal™ devices from arrestees under an institutional review board-approved protocol. Urine samples (n = 18) were collected with EZ-SCREEN® cups that presumptively screened for Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (cannabinoids), opiates, methamphetamine, cocaine, methadone, phencyclidine, amphetamine, benzodiazepines and oxycodone. Impairment observations (n = 18) were recorded from officers undergoing DRE certification. Oral fluid samples were screened using an Agilent Technologies 1290 Infinity liquid chromatograph (LC) coupled to an Agilent Technologies 6530 Accurate Mass Time-of-Flight mass spectrometer (MS). Personal compound and database libraries were produced in-house containing 64 drugs of abuse. An Agilent 1290 Infinity LC system equipped with an Agilent 6470 Triple Quadrupole MS was used for quantification of buprenorphine, heroin markers (6-acetylmorphine, morphine) and synthetic opioids. Subjects were 23-54 years old; 11 (55%) were male and 9 (45%) were female. Evaluator opinion of drug class was confirmed in oral fluid 90% of time and in urine 85% of the time in reference to scope of testing by the LC-MS methods employed (excludes cannabis and central nervous system depressants). Data indicate that oral fluid may be a viable source for confirming driving under the influence of drugs.

Cannabinoid disposition in oral fluid after controlled smoked, vaporized, and oral cannabis administration

Oral fluid (OF) is an important matrix for monitoring drugs. Smoking cannabis is common, but vaporization and edible consumption also are popular. OF pharmacokinetics are available for controlled smoked cannabis, but few data exist for vaporized and oral routes. Frequent and occasional cannabis smokers were recruited as participants for four dosing sessions including one active (6.9% Δ9 -tetrahydrocannabinol, THC) or placebo cannabis-containing brownie, followed by one active or placebo cigarette, or one active or placebo vaporized cannabis dose. Only one active dose was administered per session. OF was collected before and up to 54 (occasional) or 72 (frequent) h after dosing from cannabis smokers. THC, 11-hydroxy-THC (11-OH-THC), 11-nor-9-carboxy-THC (THCCOOH), tetrahydrocannabivarin (THCV), cannabidiol (CBD), and cannabigerol (CBG) were quantified by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. OF cannabinoid Cmax occurred during or immediately after cannabis consumption due to oral mucosa contamination. Significantly greater THC Cmax and significantly later THCV, CBD, and CBG tlast were observed after smoked and vaporized cannabis compared to oral cannabis in frequent smokers only. No significant differences in THC, 11-OH-THC, THCV, CBD, or CBG tmax between routes were observed for either group. For occasional smokers, more 11-OH-THC and THCCOOH-positive specimens were observed after oral dosing than after inhaled routes, increasing % positive cannabinoid results and widening metabolite detection windows after oral cannabis consumption. Utilizing 0.3 µg/L THCV and CBG cut-offs resulted in detection windows indicative of recent cannabis intake. OF pharmacokinetics after high potency CBD cannabis are not yet available precluding its use currently as a marker of recent use. Published 2016. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.

Disposable screen printed sensor for the electrochemical detection of methamphetamine in undiluted saliva

Background

Methamphetamine has an adverse effect on the ability to drive safely. Police need to quickly screen potentially impaired drivers therefore a rapid disposable test for methamphetamine is highly desirable. This is the first proof-of-concept report of a disposable electrochemical test for methamphetamine in undiluted saliva.

Results

A screen printed carbon electrode is used for the N,N′-(1,4-phenylene)-dibenzenesulfonamide mediated detection of methamphetamine in saliva buffer and saliva. The oxidized mediator reacts with methamphetamine to give an electrochemically active adduct which can undergo electrochemical reduction. Galvanostatic oxidation in combination with a double square wave reduction technique resulted in detection of methamphetamine in undiluted saliva with a response time of 55 s and lower detection limit of 400 ng/mL.

Conclusions

Using a double square wave voltammetry technique, rapid detection of methamphetamine in undiluted saliva can be achieved, however there is significant donor variation in response and the detection limit is significantly higher than desired. Further optimization of the assay and sensor format is required to improve the detection limit and reduce donor effects.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13065-016-0147-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Disposable screen printed sensor for the electrochemical detection of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in undiluted saliva

Background

Cannabis has an adverse effect on the ability to drive safely, therefore a rapid disposable test for Δ⁹-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ⁹-THC), the psychoactive component of cannabis, is highly desirable for roadside testing.

Results

A screen printed carbon electrode is used for the N-(4-amino-3-methoxyphenyl)-methanesulfonamide mediated detection of Δ⁹-THC in saliva. Mediator placed in an overlayer was galvanostatically oxidized and reacted with Δ⁹-THC to give an electrochemically active adduct which could be detected by chronoamperometric reduction. Detection of 25-50 ng/mL Δ⁹-THC spiked into undiluted saliva was achieved with a response time of 30 s. A trial of the sensors with four cannabis smokers showed sensitivity of 28 %, specificity of 99 % and accuracy of 52 %.

Conclusions

Rapid electrochemical detection of Δ⁹-THC in undiluted saliva has been demonstrated using a disposable sensor, however the sensitivity is lower than acceptable. Further optimization of the assay and sensor format is required to improve the sensitivity of response to Δ⁹-THC.

Cannabis effects on driving lateral control with and without alcohol

BACKGROUND

Effects of cannabis, the most commonly encountered non-alcohol drug in driving under the influence cases, are heavily debated. We aim to determine how blood Δ(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentrations relate to driving impairment, with and without alcohol.

METHODS

Current occasional (≥1×/last 3 months, ≤3days/week) cannabis smokers drank placebo or low-dose alcohol, and inhaled 500mg placebo, low (2.9%)-THC, or high (6.7%)-THC vaporized cannabis over 10min ad libitum in separate sessions (within-subject design, 6 conditions). Participants drove (National Advanced Driving Simulator, University of Iowa) simulated drives (∼0.8h duration). Blood, oral fluid (OF), and breath alcohol samples were collected before (0.17h, 0.42h) and after (1.4h, 2.3h) driving that occurred 0.5-1.3h after inhalation. We evaluated standard deviations of lateral position (lane weave, SDLP) and steering angle, lane departures/min, and maximum lateral acceleration.

RESULTS

In N=18 completers (13 men, ages 21-37years), cannabis and alcohol increased SDLP. Blood THC concentrations of 8.2 and 13.1μg/L during driving increased SDLP similar to 0.05 and 0.08g/210L breath alcohol concentrations, the most common legal alcohol limits. Cannabis-alcohol SDLP effects were additive rather than synergistic, with 5μg/L THC+0.05g/210L alcohol showing similar SDLP to 0.08g/210L alcohol alone. Only alcohol increased lateral acceleration and the less-sensitive lane departures/min parameters. OF effectively documented cannabis exposure, although with greater THC concentration variability than paired blood samples.

CONCLUSIONS

SDLP was a sensitive cannabis-related lateral control impairment measure. During drive blood THC ≥8.2μg/L increased SDLP similar to notably-impairing alcohol concentrations. Despite OF's screening value, OF variability poses challenges in concentration-based effects interpretation.

Controlled vaporized cannabis, with and without alcohol: subjective effects and oral fluid-blood cannabinoid relationships

Vaporized cannabis and concurrent cannabis and alcohol intake are commonplace. We evaluated the subjective effects of cannabis, with and without alcohol, relative to blood and oral fluid (OF, advantageous for cannabis exposure screening) cannabinoid concentrations and OF/blood and OF/plasma vaporized-cannabinoid relationships. Healthy adult occasional-to-moderate cannabis smokers received a vaporized placebo or active cannabis (2.9% and 6.7% Δ(9) -tetrahydrocannabinol, THC) with or without oral low-dose alcohol (~0.065g/210L peak breath alcohol concentration [BrAC]) in a within-subjects design. Blood and OF were collected up to 8.3 h post-dose and subjective effects measured at matched time points with visual-analogue scales and 5-point Likert scales. Linear mixed models evaluated subjective effects by THC concentration, BrAC, and interactions. Effects by time point were evaluated by dose-wise analysis of variance (ANOVA). OF versus blood or plasma cannabinoid ratios and correlations were evaluated in paired-positive specimens. Nineteen participants (13 men) completed the study. Blood THC concentration or BrAC significantly associated with subjective effects including 'high', while OF contamination prevented significant OF concentration associations <1.4 h post-dose. Subjective effects persisted through 3.3-4.3 h, with alcohol potentiating the duration of the cannabis effects. Effect-versus-THC concentration and effect-versus-alcohol concentration hystereses were counterclockwise and clockwise, respectively. OF/blood and OF/plasma THC significantly correlated (all Spearman r≥0.71), but variability was high. Vaporized cannabis subjective effects were similar to those previously reported after smoking, with duration extended by concurrent alcohol. Cannabis intake was identified by OF testing, but OF concentration variability limited interpretation. Blood THC concentrations were more consistent across subjects and more accurate at predicting cannabis' subjective effects. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Detection of 4 benzodiazepines in oral fluid as biomarker for presence in blood

BACKGROUND

Analysis of samples of oral fluid (mixed saliva) is increasingly being used to detect recent drug use. The aim of this investigation was to assess the suitability of testing oral fluid as a biomarker for the presence of 4 benzodiazepines in blood and its possible application in clinical settings and in research on drug use.

METHODS

Paired samples of oral fluid and blood from 4080 individuals in 4 European countries were collected and analyzed for benzodiazepines using gas or liquid chromatography with mass spectroscopic detection.

RESULTS

Concentration data for the 4 most commonly detected benzodiazepines were studied: alprazolam, clonazepam, diazepam, and nordiazepam. Large variations in oral fluid to blood concentration ratios were observed for the studied benzodiazepines. The interquartile ranges for the oral fluid to blood concentrations ratios corresponded to 88%-197% of the median values. Selecting cutoff concentrations in oral fluid that gave the best accuracy in identifying individuals with benzodiazepine concentrations in blood above chosen thresholds produced accuracies of 74%-85% and the fraction of false negatives was 9%-23%.

CONCLUSIONS

The concentration of the 4 studied benzodiazepines in oral fluid can neither be used to accurately estimate the concentrations in blood nor to correctly identify patients with blood drug concentrations below or above recommended therapeutic levels. When using analytical methods with limits of quantitation corresponding to concentrations less than 0.5 ng/mL in undiluted oral fluid, it may be used to confirm a recent intake of benzodiazepines. However, it is likely that some false negatives may occur.

Estimation of equivalent cutoff thresholds in blood and oral fluid for drug prevalence studies

Oral fluid is an easily available specimen for studying drug use in a cohort or population. The prevalence of drugs in samples of oral fluid is the same as the prevalence in blood if using equivalent cutoff concentrations. The cutoffs in oral fluid may be higher or lower than that in blood in accordance with the median oral fluid-to-blood (OF/B) concentration ratio, but it is also influenced by the skewness of the distribution of OF/B ratios. The aim of this study was to determine formulae for the estimation of equivalent cutoff concentrations in oral fluid and blood for 12 commonly used illegal and medicinal psychoactive drugs when oral fluid was collected with Statsure Saliva·Sampler™. Paired samples from 4,080 persons were collected and analyzed with chromatographic methods and mass spectroscopic detection. Regression formulae for the concentrations corresponding to selected percentiles in oral fluid versus the same concentration percentiles in blood were determined. The accuracy when multiplying the cutoff thresholds in blood with the average and median OF/B ratios to estimate equivalent cutoffs in oral fluid was also investigated. Prevalence regression gave the most accurate results. The regression formulae can be used to estimate equivalent cutoff concentrations in oral fluid and blood.

Current knowledge on cannabinoids in oral fluid

Oral fluid (OF) is a new biological matrix for clinical and forensic drug testing, offering non-invasive and directly observable sample collection reducing adulteration potential, ease of multiple sample collections, lower biohazard risk during collection, recent exposure identification, and stronger correlation with blood than urine concentrations. Because cannabinoids are usually the most prevalent analytes in illicit drug testing, application of OF drug testing requires sufficient scientific data to support sensitive and specific OF cannabinoid detection. This review presents current knowledge of OF cannabinoids, evaluating pharmacokinetic properties, detection windows, and correlation with other biological matrices and impairment from field applications and controlled drug administration studies. In addition, onsite screening technologies, confirmatory analytical methods, drug stability, and effects of sample collection procedure, adulterants, and passive environmental exposure are reviewed. Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol OF concentrations could be >1000 µg/L shortly after smoking, whereas minor cannabinoids are detected at 10-fold and metabolites at 1000-fold lower concentrations. OF research over the past decade demonstrated that appropriate interpretation of test results requires a comprehensive understanding of distinct elimination profiles and detection windows for different cannabinoids, which are influenced by administration route, dose, and drug use history. Thus, each drug testing program should establish cut-off criteria, collection/analysis procedures, and storage conditions tailored to its purposes. Building a scientific basis for OF testing is ongoing, with continuing OF cannabinoids research on passive environmental exposure, drug use history, donor physiological conditions, and oral cavity metabolism needed to better understand mechanisms of cannabinoid OF disposition and expand OF drug testing applicability. Published 2013. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.

Comparing drug detection in oral fluid and blood: data from a national sample of nighttime drivers

OBJECTIVE

The National Roadside Survey is a study undertaken in the United States to determine the prevalence of alcohol and drugs in randomly selected drivers. Following the success of a 2006 pilot study, the 2007 survey incorporated, for the first time, the collection of biological specimens for drug analysis. This article compares the results obtained from blinded analyses of pairs of oral fluid and blood samples obtained from the same subject.

METHODS

During the 2007 survey, more than 7000 nighttime drivers were randomly stopped and surveyed for their self-reported drug use and were requested to donate an oral fluid specimen using the Quantisal (Immunalysis Corporation, Pomona, CA) device and a blood sample. Overall, 5869 oral fluid specimens were collected from nighttime drivers with 3236 corresponding blood samples.

RESULTS

Biological specimens were analyzed for a wide range of drugs. At nighttime, 14.4 percent of the drivers were positive for drugs in oral fluid, with just over half of those having marijuana present (7.6%). Of the 3236 pairs of specimens, 2676 were negative for all drugs, and 326 matched pairs of samples were both positive, out of which 247 (75.8%) were an exact match for all drug classes and 70 (21.5%) were positive for at least one common drug class.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral fluid and blood samples provided very similar information regarding recent drug intake by randomly tested drivers and oral fluid yielded a higher detection rate for one drug (cocaine) than blood. Oral fluid can be considered a reliable alternative to blood as a matrix for drug testing.

A field test of substance use screening devices as part of routine drunk-driving spot detection operating procedures in South Africa

This pilot study aimed to test four substance use screening devices developed in Germany under local South African conditions and assess their utility for detecting driving under the influence of drugs (DUID) as part of the standard roadblock operations of local law enforcement agencies. The devices were used to screen a sample of motorists in the Gauteng and Western Cape provinces. The motorists were diverted for screening at roadblocks at the discretion of the law enforcement agencies involved, as per their standard operating procedures. Fieldworkers also administered a questionnaire that described the screening procedure, as well as information about vehicles, demographic information about the motorists and their attitudes to the screening process during testing. Motorists tested positive for breath alcohol in 28% of the 261 cases tested. Oral fluid was screened for drugs as per the standard calibrated cut-offs of all four devices. There were 14 cases where the under-influence drivers tested positive for alcohol and drugs simultaneously, but 14% of the 269 drivers drug-screened tested positive for drugs only. After alcohol, amphetamine, methamphetamine and cocaine were the most common drugs of impairment detected. The results suggest that under normal enforcement procedures only 76% of drivers impaired by alcohol and other drugs would have been detected. In more than 70% of cases the tests were administered within 5 min and this is likely to improve with more regular use. It was clear that the pilot screening process meets global testing standards. Although use of the screening devices alone would not serve as a basis for prosecution and provisions would need to be made for the confirmation of results through laboratory testing, rollout of this screening process would improve operational efficiency in at least two ways. Firstly, the accuracy of the tests will substantially decrease confirmatory test loads. Secondly, laboratory drug testing can be restricted to specific drugs rather than a full panel analysis, which will reduce testing costs significantly.

Comparison of drug concentrations between whole blood and oral fluid

The relationship of drug concentrations between oral fluid and whole blood was evaluated by studying the linear correlation of concentrations and calculating the oral fluid to blood concentration ratios (OF/B) for different substances. Paired oral fluid and whole blood samples were collected from volunteers and persons suspected of drug use in four European countries. Oral fluid samples were collected with the Saliva∙Sampler™ device. All samples were analyzed for drugs of abuse and psychoactive medicines with validated gas and liquid chromatography-mass spectrometric methods. The median OF/B ratios were, for amphetamines 19-22, for opioids 1.8-11, for cocaine and metabolites 1.7-17, for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) 14, for benzodiazepines 0.035-0.33, and for other psychoactive medicines 0.24-3.7. Most of the these results were close to theoretical values based on the physicochemical properties of the drugs and to values presented earlier, but there was a lot of inter-individual variation in the OF/B ratios. For all substances, except for lorazepam (R(2)  = 0.031) and THC (R(2)  = 0.030), a correlation between the oral fluid and whole blood concentrations was observed. Due to large variation seen here, drug findings in oral fluid should not be used to estimate the corresponding concentrations in whole blood (or vice versa). However, detection of drugs in oral fluid is a sign of recent drug use and oral fluid can be used for qualitative detection of several drugs, e.g. in epidemiological prevalence studies. By optimizing the sampling and the analytical cut-offs, the potential of oral fluid as a confirmation matrix could be enhanced.

Comparison between self-report of cannabis use and toxicological detection of THC/THCCOOH in blood and THC in oral fluid in drivers in a roadside survey

The objective of this study was to compare the number of drivers who self-reported cannabis use by questionnaires to the results of toxicological analysis. During roadside surveys, 2957 respondents driving a personal car or van completed a questionnaire to report their use of drugs and medicines during the previous two weeks and to indicate the time of their last intake. Cannabis was analyzed in oral fluid by ultra performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (UPLC-MS/MS), in blood by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS). Frequencies in the time categories were calculated and compared with toxicological results. Diagnostic values were calculated for the time categories in which positive findings were to be expected (<4 h and <2 4h, respectively for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THCCOOH) in blood, <12 h for THC in oral fluid). Most self-reported cannabis use was more than 12 h before driving. The sensitivity of the questionnaire was low, while the specificity and accuracy were high. Kappa statistics revealed a fair agreement between self-report and positive findings for THC in oral fluid and blood and moderate agreement with THCCOOH in blood. Self-report largely underestimates driving under the influence of cannabis, particularly recent cannabis use; therefore analysis of biological samples is necessary.

Presence of psychoactive substances in injured Belgian drivers

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the percentage of drivers involved in a traffic crash in Belgium who have alcohol and drugs in their blood.

METHODS

Blood samples of the drivers injured in a traffic crash and admitted to the emergency departments of 5 hospitals in Belgium between January 2008 and May 2010 were analyzed for ethanol (with an enzymatic method) and 22 other psychoactive substances (with ultra-performance liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry or gas chromatography-mass spectrometry).

RESULTS

One thousand seventy-eight drivers were included in the study. Alcohol (≥0.1 g/L) was the most common substance (26.2%). A large majority of the drivers (64%) who were positive for alcohol had a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) ≥1.3 g/L (legal limit in Belgium: 0.5 g/L). These high BACs were most frequent among male injured drivers. Cannabis was the most prevalent illicit drug (5.3%) and benzodiazepines (5.3%) were the most prevalent medicinal drugs. Approximately 1 percent of the drivers were positive for cocaine and amphetamines. No drivers tested positive for illicit opioids. Medicinal drugs were more likely to be found among female drivers and drivers older than 35 years, and alcohol and illicit drugs were more likely to be found among male drivers and drivers younger than 35 years.

CONCLUSION

A high percentage of the injured drivers were positive for a psychoactive substance at the time of injury. Alcohol was the most common substance, with 80 percent of the positive drivers having a BAC ≥0.5 g/L. Compared to a roadside survey in the same area, drivers/riders with high BACs and combinations of drugs were overrepresented. Efforts should be made to increase alcohol and drug enforcement. The introduction of a categorization and labeling system might reduce driving under the influence of medicinal drugs by informing health care professionals and patients.

Comparison of drug concentrations measured in roadside surveys and in seriously injured drivers in Belgium

The objective of this paper is to compare concentrations of alcohol, illicit, and medicinal drugs in seriously injured drivers and drivers selected randomly at the roadside. Blood samples were analyzed for alcohol, 17 medicinal drugs and 8 illicit psychoactive substances and/or their metabolites by ultra performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (UPLC-MS/MS) and gas chromatography mass spectrometry (GC-MS) in injured drivers admitted to the emergency departments of five hospitals in Belgium between January 2008 and May 2010 and in drivers randomly selected between January 2008 and September 2009. Three hundred and seventy-seven seriously injured drivers and 2750 roadside respondents were selected. In the roadside survey, out of the 203 concentrations above DRUID (Driving Under the Influence of Drugs, Alcohol and Medicines) cut-offs for medicinal drugs, 51% were in the therapeutic range, 46% infratherapeutic, and 2.5% supratherapeutic. In the seriously injured drivers, out of the 78 concentrations above DRUID cut-offs for medicinal drugs, these percentages were respectively 63%, 33%, and 4%. Significant differences were found in the distribution of concentrations for opioids, benzodiazepines, and Z-drugs. For the latter, while in the seriously injured drivers study most concentrations were therapeutic, in the roadside survey most were infratherapeutic. The opposite was observed for the opioids. Eight and 41% of the roadside respondents and injured drivers, respectively, had an alcohol concentration above 0.1 g/L, with higher concentrations found in the injured drivers. For illicit drugs, significant differences were found for amphetamine and cocaine, for which respectively lower and higher concentrations were observed in the blood samples taken in the roadside survey.