CONTACT US: Contact info
|
Citation |
Crouch DJ, Walsh JM, Flegel R, Cangianelli L, Baudys J, Atkins R. J. Anal. Toxicol. 2005; 29(4): 244-248. |
|
Affiliation |
Center for Human Toxicology, University of Utah, 20 South 2030 East, #490 Salt Lake City, Utah 84112, USA. dcrouch@alanine.pharm.utah.edu |
|
Copyright |
(Copyright © 2005, Preston Publications) |
|
DOI |
unavailable |
PMID |
15975256 |
|
Abstract |
Point-of-collection oral fluids drug-testing devices are being marketed for a variety of medico-legal purposes where they may complement existing technologies and be used to detect drugs following recent ingestion. To assess the utility of these devices for use in drugged-driving investigations, we performed a laboratory evaluation of four devices and those results were published previously. In the study reported here, two more devices, Oratect(R) (Branan) and Uplink(R) (OraSure), were evaluated for their ability to detect amphetamines, cocaine, opiates, and cannabinoids. An additional device, Drugwipe (Securtec), was evaluated for the detection of cocaine and cannabinoids. Each of the devices was assessed for their ability to meet the manufacturers' claimed cutoff concentrations and to meet cutoffs proposed for federal workplace programs. In general, the Branan and OraSure devices detected amphetamine, methamphetamine, opiates, and cannabinoid metabolite (THC-COOH) well in the concentration ranges approximating those proposed by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), but all three devices performed poorly in detecting Delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) at the proposed SAMHSA cutoff. The ability to accurately and reliably detect cocaine was dependent on the individual device, and the Branan and Securetec devices were more effective than OraSure at detecting parent cocaine. Language: en |