{"title":"Evaluation of DrugWipe® 6S with the WipeAlyser® reader for drug screening of drivers.","authors":"Ragnhild Elén Gjulem Jamt, Hallvard Gjerde, Grethe Brennhovd Clausen, Lihn Bache-Andreassen, Elisabeth Leere Øiestad","doi":"10.1093/jat/bkaf028","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>On-site drug screening of oral fluid samples has gained attention because of its convenience and rapid results. The aim of this investigation was to compare the results of preliminary screening for drugs in oral fluid samples collected from suspected drug-impaired drivers using DrugWipe 6S and WipeAlyser reader with the results obtained from blood samples. Additionally, we compared the DrugWipe test results with findings of drug traces detected within the used DrugWipe devices. Police officers selected a sample of 355 suspected drug-impaired drivers in 2023. They used DrugWipe 6S for preliminary drug screening of drivers. After the field drug testing of oral fluid, the apprehended drivers were brought to a physician for the collection of blood samples. The collected samples (DrugWipe devices and blood samples) were submitted to the Norwegian National Forensic Toxicology Laboratory for analysis. The proportion of positive DrugWipe results that were unconfirmed when analysing blood samples was 82% for opiates, 75% for cocaine, and ∼19%-20% for amphetamines, cannabis, and benzodiazepines. The proportion of negative DrugWipe results that were found positive in blood samples was for cannabis and benzodiazepines ∼13%-14%, and for other drugs <3%. Detected drug traces in the used DrugWipe devices corresponded well with DrugWipe readouts for cannabis, amphetamines, and cocaine. The lack of correspondence between DrugWipe test results for cocaine and findings in blood may be due to the fact that the concentration of cocaine in saliva is often much higher than in blood, and the DrugWipe test is very sensitive. In addition, degradation and elimination of cocaine before the blood sample is taken may contribute to cocaine concentrations below the cut-off concentration in blood. For opiates and benzodiazepines, traces of drugs were found in relatively few DrugWipe devices. Many unconfirmed positives for opiates were most likely due to cross-reaction with substances in 'snus' (snuff tobacco).</p>","PeriodicalId":14905,"journal":{"name":"Journal of analytical toxicology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of analytical toxicology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jat/bkaf028","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, ANALYTICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
On-site drug screening of oral fluid samples has gained attention because of its convenience and rapid results. The aim of this investigation was to compare the results of preliminary screening for drugs in oral fluid samples collected from suspected drug-impaired drivers using DrugWipe 6S and WipeAlyser reader with the results obtained from blood samples. Additionally, we compared the DrugWipe test results with findings of drug traces detected within the used DrugWipe devices. Police officers selected a sample of 355 suspected drug-impaired drivers in 2023. They used DrugWipe 6S for preliminary drug screening of drivers. After the field drug testing of oral fluid, the apprehended drivers were brought to a physician for the collection of blood samples. The collected samples (DrugWipe devices and blood samples) were submitted to the Norwegian National Forensic Toxicology Laboratory for analysis. The proportion of positive DrugWipe results that were unconfirmed when analysing blood samples was 82% for opiates, 75% for cocaine, and ∼19%-20% for amphetamines, cannabis, and benzodiazepines. The proportion of negative DrugWipe results that were found positive in blood samples was for cannabis and benzodiazepines ∼13%-14%, and for other drugs <3%. Detected drug traces in the used DrugWipe devices corresponded well with DrugWipe readouts for cannabis, amphetamines, and cocaine. The lack of correspondence between DrugWipe test results for cocaine and findings in blood may be due to the fact that the concentration of cocaine in saliva is often much higher than in blood, and the DrugWipe test is very sensitive. In addition, degradation and elimination of cocaine before the blood sample is taken may contribute to cocaine concentrations below the cut-off concentration in blood. For opiates and benzodiazepines, traces of drugs were found in relatively few DrugWipe devices. Many unconfirmed positives for opiates were most likely due to cross-reaction with substances in 'snus' (snuff tobacco).
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Analytical Toxicology (JAT) is an international toxicology journal devoted to the timely dissemination of scientific communications concerning potentially toxic substances and drug identification, isolation, and quantitation.
Since its inception in 1977, the Journal of Analytical Toxicology has striven to present state-of-the-art techniques used in toxicology labs. The peer-review process provided by the distinguished members of the Editorial Advisory Board ensures the high-quality and integrity of articles published in the Journal of Analytical Toxicology. Timely presentation of the latest toxicology developments is ensured through Technical Notes, Case Reports, and Letters to the Editor.