Oral Fluid Testing for Cocaine: Analytical Evaluation of Two Point-of-Collection Drug Screening Devices

Extensive comparison of salivary collection, transportation, preparation, and storage methods: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Human saliva as a bodily fluid-similar to blood-is utilized for diagnostic purposes. Unlike blood sampling, collecting saliva is non-invasive, inexpensive, and readily accessible. There are no previously published systematic reviews regarding different collection, transportation, preparation, and storage methods for human saliva.

DESIGN

This study has been prepared and organized according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. This systematic review has been registered at PROSPERO (Registration ID: CRD42023415384). The study question according to the PICO format was as followed: Comparison of the performance (C) of different saliva sampling, handling, transportation, and storage techniques and methods (I) assessed for analyzing stimulated or unstimulated human saliva (P and O). An electronic search was executed in Scopus, Google Scholar, and PubMed.

RESULTS

Twenty-three descriptive human clinical studies published between 1995 and 2022 were included. Eight categories of salivary features and biomarkers were investigated (i.e., salivary flow rate, total saliva quantity, total protein, cortisol, testosterone, DNA quality and quantity, pH and buffering pH). Twenty-two saliva sampling methods/devices were utilized. Passive drooling, Salivette®, and spitting were the most utilized methods. Sampling times with optimum capabilities for cortisol, iodine, and oral cancer metabolites are suggested to be 7:30 AM to 9:00 AM, 10:30 AM to 11:00 AM, and 14:00 PM to 20:00 PM, respectively. There were 6 storage methods. Centrifuging samples and storing them at -70 °C to -80 °C was the most utilized storage method. For DNA quantity and quality, analyzing samples immediately after collection without centrifuging or storage, outperformed centrifuging samples and storing them at -70 °C to -80 °C. Non-coated Salivette® was the most successful method/device for analyzing salivary flow rate.

CONCLUSION

It is highly suggested that scientists take aid from the reported categorized outcomes, and design their study questions based on the current voids for each method/device.

New Frontiers in Autoimmune Diagnostics: A Systematic Review on Saliva Testing

(1) Background: Immunological laboratory testing is known to be complex, and it is usually performed in tertiary referral centers. Many criticalities affect diagnostic immunological testing, such as limited availability, the need for specifically trained laboratory staff, and potential difficulties in collecting blood samples, especially in the most vulnerable patients, i.e., the elderly and children. For this reason, the identification of a new feasible and reliable methodology for autoantibody detection is urgently needed. (2) Methods: We designed a systematic review to investigate the available literature on the utilization of saliva samples for immunological testing. (3) Results: A total of 170 articles were identified. Eighteen studies met the inclusion criteria, accounting for 1059 patients and 671 controls. The saliva collection method was mostly represented by passive drooling (11/18, 61%), and the most frequently described methodology for antibody detection was ELISA (12/18, 67%). The analysis included 392 patients with rheumatoid arthritis, 161 with systemic lupus erythematosus, 131 with type 1 diabetes mellitus, 116 with primary biliary cholangitis, 100 with pemphigus vulgaris, 50 with bullous pemphigoids, 49 with Sjogren syndrome, 39 with celiac disease, 10 with primary antiphospholipid syndromes, 8 with undifferentiated connective tissue disease, 2 with systemic sclerosis, and 1 with autoimmune thyroiditis. The majority of the reviewed studies involved adequate controls, and saliva testing allowed for a clear distinction of patients (10/12 studies, 83%). More than half of the papers showed a correlation between saliva and serum results (10/18, 55%) for autoantibody detection, with varying rates of correlation, sensitivity, and specificity. Interestingly, many papers showed a correlation between saliva antibody results and clinical manifestations. (4) Conclusions: Saliva testing might represent an appealing alternative to serum-based testing for autoantibody detection, considering the correspondence with serum testing results and the correlation with clinical manifestations. Nonetheless, standardization of sample collection processing, maintenance, and detection methodology has yet to be fully addressed.

Suitability of SoToxa® Oral Fluid Screening Over Time: Re-examination of Drugged Driving in Wisconsin

Drug impaired driver detection is a critical element of traffic safety. However, shifting drug use patterns over time and geography may limit long-term reliability of assay-based screening tools. In this work, we compare qualitative results from the Abbott SoToxa® oral fluid (OF) screening device to Quantisal™ OF and whole blood. Our objective was to examine these three qualitative toxicological approaches, scope applicability of OF collection at the roadside, and compare to a previous analysis of SoToxa® in Wisconsin. OF specimens were screened with the SoToxa® for six drugs or drug classes including amphetamine, benzodiazepines, cocaine, methamphetamine, opioids, and tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). OF and blood specimens were collected from 106 participants. Quantisal™ OF and blood specimens were screened for drugs on ultra-performance liquid chromatography coupled to quadrupole time-of-flight high-resolution mass spectrometry (UPLC-QToF-HRMS) using a data independent acquisition mode. UPLC-QToF-HRMS data was compared to comprehensive spectral libraries and drugs were qualitatively identified. Drug Recognition Expert evaluations were performed, and face sheets submitted for 21 participants in this work. In general, the SoToxa® results were consistent with the combined qualitative results observed in Quantisal™ OF specimens and whole blood specimens. Limitations were uncovered for benzodiazepines, opioids, and THC. The SoToxa® benzodiazepine assay has high cutoff concentrations for diazepam and clonazepam, limiting its sensitivity and positive predictive value when considering these drugs. SoToxa® opioid screening did not detect fentanyl, which is increasingly prevalent among drug users. Finally, ∆9-THC and its major metabolite 11-nor-9-carboxy-∆9-THC are lipophilic, limiting partitioning into oral fluid. Despite these limitations, the SoToxa® instrument may be useful in assisting law enforcement with identifying individuals driving under the influence of drugs and establishing probable cause at roadside for making impaired driving arrests. Furthermore, Quantisal™ OF may be useful as screening specimens due to their ease of collection and results consistent with whole blood.

Evaluation of Latent Fingerprints for Drug-Screening In A Social Care Setting

Sweat deposited via Latent Fingerprints (LFPs) was previously used to detect cocaine, opioids, cannabis and amphetamine via a point-of-care test (POCT). This screening method combined non-invasive sampling with a rapid result turnaround to produce a qualitative result outside of the laboratory. We report the novel application of a LFP drug screening test in a social care setting. Clients were tested on either an ad-hoc or routine basis using the POCT DOA114 (Intelligent Fingerprint Ltd.) drug screening cartridge. Screening cut-off values were 45, 35 and 95 pg/fingerprint for benzoylecgonine (BZE), morphine and amphetamine analytes, respectively. Confirmation LFP samples (DOA150, Intelligent Fingerprinting Ltd.) and oral fluid (OF) were analysed using UPLC-MS/MS. Thirty-six clients aged 36 ± 11 years participated (53% females). Individuals self-reported alcohol consumption (39%) and smoking (60%). Of 131 screening tests collected over 8 weeks: 14% were positive for cocaine; 2% for opioids; 1% amphetamine. Polydrug use was indicated in 10% of tests. Of 32 LFP confirmation tests, 63% were positive for cocaine and BZE. Opioids were also detected (31%) with the metabolite 6-monoacetylmorphine (6-MAM) being the most common (16%). In OF, cocaine was the dominant analyte (9%) followed 6-MAM (5%). Comparing positive LFP screening tests with positive OF samples found 39% and 38% were cocaine and opiate positive respectively. Out of the drugs screened for via the LFP POCT, cocaine was the most prevalent analyte in LFP and OF confirmation samples. The study is a step change in the routine drug screening procedures in a social care setting: especially useful for on-site cocaine detection in clients whose drug use was being monitored. Additionally, testing was easily accepted by clients and social care workers.

Drug screening using the sweat of a fingerprint: lateral flow detection of Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol, cocaine, opiates and amphetamine

Here, we describe the use of a fluorescence based lateral flow competition assay for the screening of four classes of drugs, viz, Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), cocaine (through the detection of benzoylecgonine, BZE), opiates (through the detection of morphine, MOR) and amphetamine (AMP) present in the sweat of a fingerprint. The Drug Screening Cartridge was specifically developed for fingerprint sample collection and analysis. For this study, the cut-offs were set at: 190, 90, 68 and 80 pg/fingerprint for THC, BZE, MOR and AMP, respectively. Working with three UK coroners, the Drug Screening Cartridge, together with its fluorescence reader, was applied to the detection of drugs in the sweat of a fingerprint from deceased individuals. The study shows that there was sufficient sweat present on the fingertips to enable analysis and that the Drug Screening Cartridge could detect the presence, or absence, of each drug. The presence of the drugs was confirmed using LC-MS-MS analysis of a second fingerprint sample collected simultaneously. Excellent correlation was achieved between the results obtained from the Drug Screening Cartridge and the LC-MS-MS analysis of the fingerprint samples obtained from 75 individuals. The accuracy of the results was: 99% for THC; 95% for BZE; 96% for MOR and 93% for AMP. The results obtained using the Drug Screening Cartridge were also compared to toxicological analysis of blood and urine samples with good correlation. The accuracy of the results between the Drug Screening Cartridge and blood was: 96%, 92%, 88% and 97% for THC, BZE, MOR and AMP, respectively. The comparison with urine showed an accuracy ranging between 86% and 92%. This fingerprint sample method has a collection time of just 5 s and a total analysis time of <10 mins. These results show that the lateral flow Drug Screening Cartridge is an excellent screening test to provide information on drug use from the sweat in a single fingerprint sample.

Comparison of Cocaine/Crack Biomarkers Concentrations in Oral Fluid, Urine and Plasma Simultaneously Collected From Drug Users

The use of oral fluid (OF) as an alternative specimen for drug analysis has become very popular in forensic toxicology. Many clinical studies have evaluated the correlations between concentrations of cocaine and its metabolites in OF and other matrices, but results have shown high variability. In addition, there are no data available regarding the correlations between biomarkers of crack-cocaine use in different matrices. This study evaluated the relationship between concentrations of cocaine/crack-cocaine biomarkers in OF, urine and plasma samples collected from cocaine users. All samples were analyzed for the presence of cocaine (COC), benzoylecgonine (BZE) and anhydroecgonine (AEC) by a validated liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry method. Median COC, BZE and AEC concentrations ranged from 4.20 to 33.26 ng/mL, from 13.03 to 3,615.86 ng/mL and from 7.40 to 1,892.5 ng/mL across matrices, respectively. The relationship between drug concentrations in OF versus plasma (OF/P) and OF versus urine (OF/U) was evaluated by their coefficients of determination (R2). Least-squares regression analyses demonstrated significant correlations between OF/P and OF/U for cocaine and BE (P < 0.05), with R2 = 0.17, 0.07 for cocaine and R2 = 0.73, 0.45 for BE, respectively. The correlation coefficients (r) found for BZE, COC and AEC in OF/P and OF/U were 0.85 and 0.67 (P < 0.05); 0.41 and 0.26 (P < 0.05); and 0.30 and -0.37 (P > 0.05), respectively. Many factors contribute to the variability of drug correlation ratios in studies involving random samples, including uncertainty about the time of last administration and dosage. Overall, we found significant R2 values for COC and BZE in OF/P and OF/U, but not for AEC. Despite the good correlations found in some cases, especially for BZE, the large variation in drug concentrations seen in this work suggests that OF concentrations should not be used to estimate concentrations of COC, BZE or AEC in plasma and/or urine.