Citation

Scherer JN, Fiorentin TR, Sousa TR, Limberger RP, Pechansky F. J. Anal. Toxicol. 2017; 41(5): 392-398.

Affiliation

Center for Drug and Alcohol Research, Collaborating Center on Alcohol and Drugs - HCPA/SENAD, Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Rua Professor Álvaro Alvim, 400, 90420-020 Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2017, Preston Publications)

DOI

10.1093/jat/bkx018

PMID

28334841

Abstract

The use of point-of-collection testing (POCT) devices for drugs of abuse in oral fluid (OF) is an advantageous tool that has been used for different purposes-particularly traffic enforcement. However, even with the widespread report of cocaine consumption, the reliability of POCT devices has been reported in different magnitudes. This study evaluated the reliability of two POCT devices for the detection of cocaine in OF samples of 110 cocaine users: (i) the DDS2™ (cutoff = 30 ng/mL) and (ii) the Multi-Drugs Multi-Line-Twist Screen Test Device™ (MDML) (cutoff = 20 ng/mL).

RESULTS of the screening tests were compared with a Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS) assay. Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of DDS2™ were 100, 77.77 and 80% when compared with LC-MS with a cutoff of 30 ng/mL, and 88.89, 89.15 and 89.09% with a cutoff of 10 ng/mL. The MDML™ device achieved sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of 100, 65.6 and 70.9% when compared with LC-MS with a cutoff of 20 ng/mL, and 92.6, 71.1 and 76.6% with a cutoff of 10 ng/mL. When compared with a 10 ng/mL cutoff, the DDS2™ achieved reliability parameters higher than 80%. On the other hand, the MDML™ device did not achieve the minimal recommendation of 80% for all parameters at the same time. Taking into consideration the reliability results showed here, the authors believe that the use of these POCT devices seems to be suitable for cocaine detection in forensic tests only if all positive specimens are further confirmed by a validated method.

© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Language: en