Search

Background: Currently, urine and blood are the only matrices authorized for antidoping testing by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). Although the usefulness of urine and blood is proven, issues remain for monitoring some drug classes and for drugs prohibited only in competition. The alternative matrix oral fluid (OF) may offer solutions to some of these issues. OF collection is easy, noninvasive, and sex neutral and is directly observed, limiting potential adulteration, a major problem for urine testing. OF is used to monitor drug intake in workplace, clinical toxicology, criminal justice, and driving under the influence of drugs programs and potentially could complement urine and blood for antidoping testing in sports., Content: This review outlines the present state of knowledge and the advantages and limitations of OF testing for each of the WADA drug classes and the research needed to advance OF testing as a viable alternative for antidoping testing., Summary: Doping agents are either prohibited at all times or prohibited in competition only. Few OF data from controlled drug administration studies are available for substances banned at all times, whereas for some agents prohibited only in competition, sufficient data may be available to suggest appropriate analytes and cutoffs (analytical threshold concentrations) to identify recent drug use. Additional research is needed to characterize the disposition of many banned substances into OF; OF collection methods and doping agent stability in OF also require investigation to allow the accurate interpretation of OF tests for antidoping monitoring.

Background: Oral Δ(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is effective for attenuating cannabis withdrawal and may benefit treatment of cannabis use disorders. Oral fluid (OF) cannabinoid testing, increasing in forensic and workplace settings, could be valuable for monitoring during cannabis treatment., Methods: Eleven cannabis smokers resided on a closed research unit for 51 days and received daily 0, 30, 60, and 120 mg of oral THC in divided doses for 5 days. There was a 5-puff smoked cannabis challenge on the fifth day. Each medication session was separated by 9 days of ad libitum cannabis smoking. OF was collected the evening before and throughout oral THC sessions and analyzed by 2-dimensional GC-MS for THC, cannabidiol (CBD), cannabinol (CBN), 11-hydroxy-THC (11-OH-THC), and 11-nor-9-carboxy-THC (THCCOOH)., Results: During all oral THC administrations, THC OF concentrations decreased to ≤ 78.2, 33.2, and 1.4 μg/L by 24, 48, and 72 h, respectively. CBN also decreased over time, with concentrations 10-fold lower than THC, with none detected beyond 69 h. CBD and 11-OH-THC were rarely detected, only within 19 and 1.6 h after smoking, respectively. THCCOOH OF concentrations were dose dependent and increased over time during 120-mg THC dosing. After cannabis smoking, THC, CBN, and THCCOOH concentrations showed a significant dose effect and decreased significantly over time., Conclusions: Oral THC dosing significantly affected OF THCCOOH but minimally contributed to THC OF concentrations; prior ad libitum smoking was the primary source of THC, CBD, and CBN. Higher cannabinoid concentrations following active oral THC administrations vs placebo suggest a compensatory effect of THC tolerance on smoking topography.