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

Sabina Strano-Rossi; Erika Castrignanò; Luca Anzillotti; Giovanni Serpelloni; Roberto Mollica; Franco Tagliaro; Jennifer P. Pascali; Delfina Di Stefano; Roberto Sgalla; Marcello Chiarotti

doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2012.04.003

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

Sabina Strano-Rossi^*, Erika Castrignanò, Luca Anzillotti, Giovanni Serpelloni, Roberto Mollica, Franco Tagliaro, Jennifer P. Pascali, Delfina Di Stefano, Roberto Sgalla, Marcello Chiarotti

^*Corresponding author for this work

Analytical, Environmental & Forensic Sciences

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

76 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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 DDS^®, Drugtest 5000^®, Drugwipe 5+^® and RapidSTAT^®, 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% (RapidSTAT^®), 82% (DDS^®), 90% (Drugwipe 5+^®) and 97% (Drugtest 5000^®) for cocaine and 38% (DDS^®), 47% (Drugwipe 5+^®), 72% (RapidSTAT^®) and 92% (Drugtest 5000^®) for THC. Drugtest 5000 was the only kit showing an acceptable sensitivity for on-site application. Only Drugtest 5000^® and RapidSTAT^® could be evaluated for amphetamines and methamphetamines: Drugtest 5000^® showed a sensitivity of 100% in the case of amphetamines and 86% for methamphetamines, while RapidSTAT^® 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.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	70-76
Number of pages	7
Journal	Forensic Science International
Volume	221
Issue number	1-3
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2012.04.003
Publication status	Published - 10 Sept 2012

Keywords

DUID
Kits evaluation
On-site testing
Oral fluid

Access to Document

10.1016/j.forsciint.2012.04.003

Cite this

Strano-Rossi, S., Castrignanò, E., Anzillotti, L., Serpelloni, G., Mollica, R., Tagliaro, F., Pascali, J. P., Di Stefano, D., Sgalla, R., & Chiarotti, M. (2012). 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. Forensic Science International, 221(1-3), 70-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2012.04.003

@article{794b94d997324e1eb4bbc69e15ca2ba8,

title = "Evaluation of four oral fluid devices (DDS{\textregistered}, Drugtest 5000{\textregistered}, Drugwipe 5+{\textregistered} and RapidSTAT{\textregistered}) for on-site monitoring drugged driving in comparison with UHPLC-MS/MS analysis",

abstract = "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 DDS{\textregistered}, Drugtest 5000{\textregistered}, Drugwipe 5+{\textregistered} and RapidSTAT{\textregistered}, 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% (RapidSTAT{\textregistered}), 82% (DDS{\textregistered}), 90% (Drugwipe 5+{\textregistered}) and 97% (Drugtest 5000{\textregistered}) for cocaine and 38% (DDS{\textregistered}), 47% (Drugwipe 5+{\textregistered}), 72% (RapidSTAT{\textregistered}) and 92% (Drugtest 5000{\textregistered}) for THC. Drugtest 5000 was the only kit showing an acceptable sensitivity for on-site application. Only Drugtest 5000{\textregistered} and RapidSTAT{\textregistered} could be evaluated for amphetamines and methamphetamines: Drugtest 5000{\textregistered} showed a sensitivity of 100% in the case of amphetamines and 86% for methamphetamines, while RapidSTAT{\textregistered} 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.",

keywords = "DUID, Kits evaluation, On-site testing, Oral fluid",

author = "Sabina Strano-Rossi and Erika Castrignan{\`o} and Luca Anzillotti and Giovanni Serpelloni and Roberto Mollica and Franco Tagliaro and Pascali, {Jennifer P.} and {Di Stefano}, Delfina and Roberto Sgalla and Marcello Chiarotti",

note = "Funding Information: This article has been produced under the project “TOXTEST” financed by the Italian Department of Antidrug Policy, Presidency of Ministers Council . ",

year = "2012",

month = sep,

day = "10",

doi = "10.1016/j.forsciint.2012.04.003",

language = "English",

volume = "221",

pages = "70--76",

journal = "Forensic Science International",

issn = "0379-0738",

publisher = "Elsevier Ireland Ltd",

number = "1-3",

}

Strano-Rossi, S, Castrignanò, E, Anzillotti, L, Serpelloni, G, Mollica, R, Tagliaro, F, Pascali, JP, Di Stefano, D, Sgalla, R & Chiarotti, M 2012, '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', Forensic Science International, vol. 221, no. 1-3, pp. 70-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2012.04.003

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. / Strano-Rossi, Sabina; Castrignanò, Erika; Anzillotti, Luca et al.
In: Forensic Science International, Vol. 221, No. 1-3, 10.09.2012, p. 70-76.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

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

N1 - Funding Information: This article has been produced under the project “TOXTEST” financed by the Italian Department of Antidrug Policy, Presidency of Ministers Council .

PY - 2012/9/10

Y1 - 2012/9/10

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 DDS®, Drugtest 5000®, Drugwipe 5+® and RapidSTAT®, 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% (RapidSTAT®), 82% (DDS®), 90% (Drugwipe 5+®) and 97% (Drugtest 5000®) for cocaine and 38% (DDS®), 47% (Drugwipe 5+®), 72% (RapidSTAT®) and 92% (Drugtest 5000®) for THC. Drugtest 5000 was the only kit showing an acceptable sensitivity for on-site application. Only Drugtest 5000® and RapidSTAT® could be evaluated for amphetamines and methamphetamines: Drugtest 5000® showed a sensitivity of 100% in the case of amphetamines and 86% for methamphetamines, while RapidSTAT® 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 DDS®, Drugtest 5000®, Drugwipe 5+® and RapidSTAT®, 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% (RapidSTAT®), 82% (DDS®), 90% (Drugwipe 5+®) and 97% (Drugtest 5000®) for cocaine and 38% (DDS®), 47% (Drugwipe 5+®), 72% (RapidSTAT®) and 92% (Drugtest 5000®) for THC. Drugtest 5000 was the only kit showing an acceptable sensitivity for on-site application. Only Drugtest 5000® and RapidSTAT® could be evaluated for amphetamines and methamphetamines: Drugtest 5000® showed a sensitivity of 100% in the case of amphetamines and 86% for methamphetamines, while RapidSTAT® 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

KW - Kits evaluation

KW - On-site testing

KW - Oral fluid

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84864367864&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.forsciint.2012.04.003

DO - 10.1016/j.forsciint.2012.04.003

M3 - Article

C2 - 22554872

AN - SCOPUS:84864367864

SN - 0379-0738

VL - 221

SP - 70

EP - 76

JO - Forensic Science International

JF - Forensic Science International

IS - 1-3

ER -

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

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this