14.01.2015 Views

SOFT 2004 Meeting Abstracts - Society of Forensic Toxicologists

SOFT 2004 Meeting Abstracts - Society of Forensic Toxicologists

SOFT 2004 Meeting Abstracts - Society of Forensic Toxicologists

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

M34 <br />

COMPARISON OF ORAL FLUID WITH URINE TESTING IN DRE CERTIFICATIONS<br />

Michael A. Wagner!*, Colleen Scarneo l , Emily Rice l , Kris Valas l , Susan Lefebvre l and Christina Werner2<br />

IOepartment <strong>of</strong> Safety, State Police <strong>Forensic</strong> Toxicology Group 33, Hazen Dr., Concord, NH 03301, and<br />

20raSure Technologies, 150 Webster Street, Bethlehem, PA 18015<br />

Determination <strong>of</strong> impairment by drugs in OWl cases or in the work place <strong>of</strong>ten requires the analysis <strong>of</strong> biological<br />

specimens. The most common matrices tested are blood, urine and saliva. Each <strong>of</strong> these matrices has inherent<br />

advantages and disadvantages. For example, urine has advantages <strong>of</strong> providing a historical perspective to drug<br />

use yet does not supply impairment interpretation. Saliva has the potential for supplying interpretation with<br />

respect to blood concentration and impairment with similar detection widows to blood. This abstract reviewed<br />

61 ORE cases, July 8 1h 2002 until June 30 1h 2003, involving roadside stops for OWl and ORE certifications<br />

events. Twenty-six <strong>of</strong> the 61 cases involved ORE certification events such as; concerts, and evaluation nights<br />

arranged by various police departments were the subject <strong>of</strong> this initial study. During the certification events the<br />

laboratory personnel was able to attend and assist law enforcement with the collection <strong>of</strong> oral fluids and urine<br />

samples. Oral fluids were collected using the Intercept Collection device from OraSure Technologies Inc. The<br />

process entailed having the subject place an oral collection pad (attached to a handle) between the lower cheek<br />

and gum, rubbing back and forth until moist. Most subjects just sucked on the pad until the sampling time<br />

interval was completed (2 minutes). The pad was placed in the sampling tube containing 800 uls <strong>of</strong> OraSure<br />

buffer solution. The specimens were collected typically upon completion <strong>of</strong> the ORE evaluation. Matched urine<br />

and oral fluids specimens were collected. The oral fluids were tested in the on Intercept® Micro-Plate EIA,<br />

while the urines used the on Micro-Plate EIA serum kits optimized for urine analysis. Both analyses were<br />

performed on a PersonalLABTM automated analyzer. All subjects were screened for seven classes <strong>of</strong> drugs:<br />

Benzodiazepines, Cocaine, Cannabinoids, Opiates, Methamphetamines, Amphetamines, Barbiturates, PCP, and<br />

Methadone.<br />

Summarized in Table I are the correlated analytical results between urine and oral fluid testing as they relate to<br />

ORE interpretation. The positive rates with respect to the various drug categories appears to be the highest for<br />

Cocaines and Cannabinoids, 87% and 94% respectively, while Barbiturates had the highest percentage <strong>of</strong> oral<br />

fluid positive results 75% versus 25% for urine. ORE percent corroboration varied between 25% for Stimulants,<br />

36% for Depressants, 47% for Cannabinoids, and 100% for Narcotic Analgesics. These results seem to parallel<br />

with the subject's admission rate. Certainly one issue confounding the ORE corroboration was the percentage <strong>of</strong><br />

positive polydrug cases. 57% <strong>of</strong> the cases had two or more drug categories test positive, 27% screened positive<br />

for three or more drugs, 15% <strong>of</strong> the cases screened positive for four or more drugs, and 8% <strong>of</strong> the cases screened<br />

positive for five or more drugs.<br />

The ease <strong>of</strong> administration for oral fluid testing in ORE evaluations may provide additional information with<br />

respect to impairment interpretation. This initial study demonstrated that Cocaine and Cannabinoids appeared to<br />

have a better correlation with urine as compared to other drug classes, while Barbiturates had the highest<br />

specificity for oral fluids.<br />

Table I<br />

! Drug Urine Oral No. Tests Urine OF ORE Subject<br />

Categories NH-ForenTox NH-Foren Tox "'+" "+" Opinions Admission<br />

Cut<strong>of</strong>f ng/mL Cut<strong>of</strong>fng/mL<br />

Benzodiaz 100 1.0 11 11 2 3 2<br />

cac 100 5.0 16 13 14 4 4<br />

THC 20 1.0 17 16 12 8 IO i<br />

Opiates 200 10 8 8 4 8 5<br />

Methamph 300 40 4 4 1 1 2<br />

Barbiturate 200 20 3 1 3 2 2<br />

Methadone 300 5.0 3 3 1 3 3<br />

PCP 25 1.0 ND - - - -<br />

Amphet 300 100 NO - - - -<br />

Key Words: DRE, Oral Fluids, Urine Drug Screen, ErA<br />

Page 317

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!