TY - JOUR
T1 - Evaluation of four oral fluid devices (dds, drugtest 5000, drugwipe 5+ and rapidstat) for on-site monitoring drugged driving in comparison with UHPLC-MS/MS analysis
AU - Strano Rossi, Sabina
AU - Castrignanò, Erika
AU - Anzillotti, Luca
AU - Serpelloni, Giovanni
AU - Mollica, Roberto
AU - Tagliaro, Franco
AU - Pascali, Jennifer P.
AU - Di Stefano, Delfina
AU - Sgalla, Roberto
AU - Chiarotti, Marcello
PY - 2012
Y1 - 2012
N2 - New Italian legislation on driving under the influence of drugs considers oral fluid (OF) as a possible
alternative drug testing matrix. On this basis, the present research was carried out to evaluate the
applicability of four commercial on-site OF drug screening devices, namely DDS1, Drugtest 50001,
Drugwipe 5+1 and RapidSTAT1, in a real operative context.
Preliminarily trained police officers tested randomly stopped drivers with two different kits side-by-
side during roadside patrols. A central laboratory confirmed on-site kits’ results by UHPLC–MS/MS
analysis of the saliva specimen remaining after the screening analysis. 1025 drivers were submitted to
the OF tests: 11.6% were positive for cocaine and metabolites, 11.1% for THC, 6% for amphetamines and
amphetamine-type designer drugs and 2.3% for ketamine.
The sensitivities of the kits were 81% (RapidSTAT1), 82% (DDS1), 90% (Drugwipe 5+1) and 97%
(Drugtest 50001) for cocaine and 38% (DDS1), 47% (Drugwipe 5+1), 72% (RapidSTAT1) and 92%
(Drugtest 50001) for THC. Drugtest 5000 was the only kit showing an acceptable sensitivity for on-site
application. Only Drugtest 50001 and RapidSTAT1 could be evaluated for amphetamines and
methamphetamines: Drugtest 50001 showed a sensitivity of 100% in the case of amphetamines and 86%
for methamphetamines, while RapidSTAT1 90% and 76% respectively. Nowadays, ketamine is not
included in the target analytes of any on-site devices, but it was systematically included in the UHPLC–
MS/MS confirmatory analysis. To ensure adequate reliability, MS confirmation of on-site OF screening
tests is anyway always necessary, due to the presence of a significant number of false positive results
even when using the commercial kit with the best performance.
AB - New Italian legislation on driving under the influence of drugs considers oral fluid (OF) as a possible
alternative drug testing matrix. On this basis, the present research was carried out to evaluate the
applicability of four commercial on-site OF drug screening devices, namely DDS1, Drugtest 50001,
Drugwipe 5+1 and RapidSTAT1, in a real operative context.
Preliminarily trained police officers tested randomly stopped drivers with two different kits side-by-
side during roadside patrols. A central laboratory confirmed on-site kits’ results by UHPLC–MS/MS
analysis of the saliva specimen remaining after the screening analysis. 1025 drivers were submitted to
the OF tests: 11.6% were positive for cocaine and metabolites, 11.1% for THC, 6% for amphetamines and
amphetamine-type designer drugs and 2.3% for ketamine.
The sensitivities of the kits were 81% (RapidSTAT1), 82% (DDS1), 90% (Drugwipe 5+1) and 97%
(Drugtest 50001) for cocaine and 38% (DDS1), 47% (Drugwipe 5+1), 72% (RapidSTAT1) and 92%
(Drugtest 50001) for THC. Drugtest 5000 was the only kit showing an acceptable sensitivity for on-site
application. Only Drugtest 50001 and RapidSTAT1 could be evaluated for amphetamines and
methamphetamines: Drugtest 50001 showed a sensitivity of 100% in the case of amphetamines and 86%
for methamphetamines, while RapidSTAT1 90% and 76% respectively. Nowadays, ketamine is not
included in the target analytes of any on-site devices, but it was systematically included in the UHPLC–
MS/MS confirmatory analysis. To ensure adequate reliability, MS confirmation of on-site OF screening
tests is anyway always necessary, due to the presence of a significant number of false positive results
even when using the commercial kit with the best performance.
KW - DUID, Oral Fluid, On-site testing, kits evaluation
KW - DUID, Oral Fluid, On-site testing, kits evaluation
UR - http://hdl.handle.net/10807/2789
UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2012.04.003
U2 - 10.1016/j.forsciint.2012.04.003
DO - 10.1016/j.forsciint.2012.04.003
M3 - Article
SN - 0379-0738
VL - 2012
SP - 70
EP - 76
JO - Forensic Science International
JF - Forensic Science International
ER -