SOFT 2004 Meeting Abstracts - Society of Forensic Toxicologists
SOFT 2004 Meeting Abstracts - Society of Forensic Toxicologists
SOFT 2004 Meeting Abstracts - Society of Forensic Toxicologists
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