Search

For many drugs, there is a poor correlation between the plasma and oral fluid (OF) concentrations, due to differences in OF pH, oral contamination, stimulation of OF flow and variability of the volume of sample taken. The aim of this study was to evaluate the OF/plasma ratio and variability in drug concentration in OF sampled by two commercially available collection systems: Saliva Collection System (SCS) and Quantisal. Blood and OF samples were collected from 12 volunteers after intake of 19.5 mg codeine phosphate. Six persons were sampled by SCS first, followed by Quantisal; six other participants used Quantisal before SCS. The OF content of SCS tubes was measured spectrophotometrically. The Quantisal devices were weighed to correct for the effectively obtained OF volume. Codeine was measured by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. The mean codeine concentration at 1 h was 29.8 ± 18.8 µg/L in plasma, 72.8 ± 63.9 µg/L in SCS OF and 85.3 ± 72.6 µg/L in Quantisal OF. The mean OF/plasma ratio was 2.30 ± 0.77 (SCS) and 2.69 ± 1.94 (Quantisal). Pearson's correlation coefficient between OF and plasma codeine concentrations was statistically significantly (P = 0.005) higher for SCS (R² = 0.745) than for Quantisal (R² = 0.403). The variability in ratios with Quantisal wasmarkedly reduced when used after SCS. Codeine concentrationsmeasured in OF taken with SCS correlate better with plasma concentrations than in OF obtained with Quantisal, particularly when Quantisal was used first. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Oral fluid is an easily available specimen for studying drug use in a cohort or population. The prevalence of drugs in samples of oral fluid is the same as the prevalence in blood if using equivalent cutoff concentrations. The cutoffs in oral fluid may be higher or lower than that in blood in accordance with the median oral fluid-to-blood (OF/B) concentration ratio, but it is also influenced by the skewness of the distribution of OF/B ratios. The aim of this study was to determine formulae for the estimation of equivalent cutoff concentrations in oral fluid and blood for 12 commonly used illegal and medicinal psychoactive drugs when oral fluid was collected with Statsure Saliva·SamplerTM. Paired samples from 4,080 persons were collected and analyzed with chromatographic methods and mass spectroscopic detection. Regression formulae for the concentrations corresponding to selected percentiles in oral fluid versus the same concentration percentiles in blood were determined. The accuracy when multiplying the cutoff thresholds in blood with the average and median OF/B ratios to estimate equivalent cutoffs in oral fluid was also investigated. Prevalence regression gave the most accurate results. The regression formulae can be used to estimate equivalent cutoff concentrations in oral fluid and blood. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a study which compares the number of drivers in Belgium who had consumed drug above the legal cutoffs for driving under influence of illicit substances in oral fluids and blood. It mentions that the samples were analyzed by ultra-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry along with gas chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. It concludes more positive results were obtained based on oral fluid analysis as compared to blood analysis.

New psychoactive substances continue to appear on the drug market. Until recently, new synthetic opioids, which are among the most dangerous new psychoactive substances, primarily encompassed analogs of the potent analgesic fentanyl. Lately, also other new synthetic opioids have increasingly started to surface. This is the first report on the identification and full chemical characterization of brorphine, a novel potent synthetic opioid with a piperidine benzimidazolone structure. A powder, identified as brorphine, was obtained from a patient seeking medical help for detoxification. Brorphine was also found in a serum sample of the patient. Liquid chromatography-high-resolution mass spectrometry (LC-HRMS) identified an exact mass of m/z 400.1020 and 402.1005 for the compound, corresponding to both bromine isotopes. Further chemical characterization was performed by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry, liquid chromatography-diode array detection and Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy analyses. Finally, the structure was confirmed by performing 1H-NMR and 13C-NMR spectroscopy. In vitro biological activity of brorphine was determined by a cell-based µ-opioid receptor activation assay, resulting in an EC50 of 30.9 nM (13.5 ng/mL) and an Emax of 209% relative to hydromorphone, confirming the high potency and efficacy of this compound. In a serum sample of the patient, brorphine and a hydroxy-metabolite were found using the LC-HRMS screening method. The presence of opioid activity in the serum was also confirmed via the activity-based opioid screening assay. The occurrence of brorphine is yet another example of how the illicit drug market is continuously evolving in an attempt to escape international legislation. Its high potency poses a serious and imminent health threat for any user., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Society of Forensic Toxicologists, Inc. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

The objective of this study was to compare the number of drivers with drug concentrations above the legal cutoffs for driving under the influence of illicit substances in paired samples of blood and oral fluid. Between January 2008 and September 2009, 2,949 randomly selected drivers participated in a roadside survey. Each was asked to provide blood and oral fluid. Samples were analyzed for 11 illicit substances or metabolites by ultra-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry and gas chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Out of the 2,750 drivers who gave both blood and oral fluid, 28 (1.0%) had drug concentrations above the legal cutoff in blood and 71 (2.6%) were above the legal cutoff in oral fluid. Fifteen (7.5%) of the 199 drivers who gave an oral fluid sample but refused to provide blood tested positive, significantly more than drivers who provided both samples. Based on oral fluid analysis, 2.6 times more subjects tested positive for drugs compared to blood analysis. Those that refused to give a blood sample were 3 times more likely to test positive for drugs. Even in a survey that guaranteed total anonymity, people fearing a positive test result might have been more likely to refuse to give a blood sample.

The use of oral fluid (OF) as an alternative matrix for the detection of drugs of abuse has increased over the last decade, leading to the need for a rapid, simple, and reliable on-site OF testing device. Four on-site OF drug testing devices (Dräger DrugTest 5000, Cozart DDS, Mavand Rapid STAT, and Innovacon OrAlert) were evaluated on 408 volunteers at drug treatment centers. UPLC-MS-MS results were used as reference to determine sensitivity, specificity and accuracy for each device, applying Belgian legal confirmation cutoffs for benzoylecgonine, cocaine, and THC (10 ng/mL); morphine and 6-acetylmorphine (5 ng/mL); and amphetamine and 3,4-methylenedioxymethylamphetamine (25 ng/mL). Sensitivity for cocaine was 50%, 50%, 27%, and 11% for DrugTest, OrAlert, Rapid STAT, and DDS 806, respectively. For opiates, sensitivities were 84%, 73%, 77%, and 65%, respectively. For THC, the sensitivities were 81%, 23%, 43%, and 28%, respectively. For amphetamines, the sensitivities were 75%, 33%, 17%, and 67%, respectively. Specificity was >88% for opiates and THC, > 90% for amphetamines, and > 97% for cocaine. All tests showed good specificity. DrugTest had the highest sensitivity, although it was still low for some analytes.

In Belgium, the driving under the influence of drugs (DUID) procedure consists of three steps: observation of external signs of drug consumption by a police officer; an on-site urine test for amphetamines, cannabinoids, cocaine, and opiates; and blood sampling by a physician for gas chromatography-mass spectrometry analysis. The driver is sanctioned if THC is greater than 2 ng/mL, morphine is greater than 20 ng/mL, or amphetamine, methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), methylenedioxyethylamphetamine, N-methyl-1-(3.4-methylenedioxyphenyl)-2-butanamine, cocaine, or benzoylecgonine are greater than 50 ng/mL in plasma. We analyzed the results of 450 blood samples taken from May 2000 to February 2005. Cannabis was most often found above the cut-off (73.5% of the cases), followed by MDMA (20.4%), amphetamine (19.8%), benzoylecgonine (17.9%), cocaine (6.9%), and morphine (2.7%). One drug was found in 72.0% of the cases, two drugs in 22.6%, three drugs in 5.2%, and four drugs in 0.25%. In 10.7% of the plasma samples no target drugs were found above the legal cut-off. This percentage was 8.4% when urine was obtained and tested on-site and 21.2% when no urine was obtained (chi2 = 8.574, P = 0.0034). In 64.6% of these samples, a target drug (THC in 74.2%) was found under the legal cut-off. These data indicate that roadside urine testing significantly decreases the number of unnecessary blood analyses in DUID.