Wendy M Bosker1, Marilyn A Huestis. 1. Maastricht University, Neuropsychology & Psychopharmacology, Experimental Psychopharmacology Unit, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Oral fluid (OF) is an exciting alternative matrix for monitoring drugs of abuse in workplace, clinical toxicology, criminal justice, and driving under the influence of drugs (DUID) programs. During the last 5 years, scientific and technological advances in OF collection, point-of-collection testing devices, and screening and confirmation methods were achieved. Guidelines were proposed for workplace OF testing by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, DUID testing by the European Union's Driving under the Influence of Drugs, Alcohol and Medicines (DRUID) program, and standardization of DUID research. Although OF testing is now commonplace in many monitoring programs, the greatest current limitation is the scarcity of controlled drug administration studies available to guide interpretation. CONTENT: This review outlines OF testing advantages and limitations, and the progress in OF that has occurred during the last 5 years in collection, screening, confirmation, and interpretation of cannabinoids, opioids, amphetamines, cocaine, and benzodiazepines. We examine controlled drug administration studies, immunoassay and chromatographic methods, collection devices, point-of-collection testing device performance, and recent applications of OF testing. SUMMARY: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration approval of OF testing was delayed because questions about drug OF disposition were not yet resolved, and collection device performance and testing assays required improvement. Here, we document the many advances achieved in the use of OF. Additional research is needed to identify new biomarkers, determine drug detection windows, characterize OF adulteration techniques, and evaluate analyte stability. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that OF offers multiple advantages as an alternative matrix for drug monitoring and has an important role in DUID, treatment, workplace, and criminal justice programs.
BACKGROUND: Oral fluid (OF) is an exciting alternative matrix for monitoring drugs of abuse in workplace, clinical toxicology, criminal justice, and driving under the influence of drugs (DUID) programs. During the last 5 years, scientific and technological advances in OF collection, point-of-collection testing devices, and screening and confirmation methods were achieved. Guidelines were proposed for workplace OF testing by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, DUID testing by the European Union's Driving under the Influence of Drugs, Alcohol and Medicines (DRUID) program, and standardization of DUID research. Although OF testing is now commonplace in many monitoring programs, the greatest current limitation is the scarcity of controlled drug administration studies available to guide interpretation. CONTENT: This review outlines OF testing advantages and limitations, and the progress in OF that has occurred during the last 5 years in collection, screening, confirmation, and interpretation of cannabinoids, opioids, amphetamines, cocaine, and benzodiazepines. We examine controlled drug administration studies, immunoassay and chromatographic methods, collection devices, point-of-collection testing device performance, and recent applications of OF testing. SUMMARY: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration approval of OF testing was delayed because questions about drug OF disposition were not yet resolved, and collection device performance and testing assays required improvement. Here, we document the many advances achieved in the use of OF. Additional research is needed to identify new biomarkers, determine drug detection windows, characterize OF adulteration techniques, and evaluate analyte stability. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that OF offers multiple advantages as an alternative matrix for drug monitoring and has an important role in DUID, treatment, workplace, and criminal justice programs.
Authors: R S Niedbala; K W Kardos; D F Fritch; S Kardos; T Fries; J Waga; J Robb; E J Cone Journal: J Anal Toxicol Date: 2001 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 3.367
Authors: Riet Dams; Constance M Murphy; Robin E Choo; Willy E Lambert; Andre P De Leenheer; Marilyn A Huestis Journal: Anal Chem Date: 2003-02-15 Impact factor: 6.986
Authors: Insook Kim; Allan J Barnes; Raf Schepers; Eric T Moolchan; Lisa Wilson; Gail Cooper; Claire Reid; Chris Hand; Marilyn A Huestis Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: U E Busto; H L Kaplan; C E Wright; B Gomez-Mancilla; L Zawertailo; D J Greenblatt; E M Sellers Journal: J Clin Psychopharmacol Date: 2000-12 Impact factor: 3.153
Authors: Allan J Barnes; Insook Kim; Raf Schepers; Eric T Moolchan; Lisa Wilson; Gail Cooper; Claire Reid; Chris Hand; Marilyn A Huestis Journal: J Anal Toxicol Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 3.367
Authors: Raf J F Schepers; Jonathan M Oyler; Robert E Joseph; Edward J Cone; Eric T Moolchan; Marilyn A Huestis Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: Insook Kim; Allan J Barnes; Jonathan M Oyler; Raf Schepers; Robert E Joseph; Edward J Cone; Diana Lafko; Eric T Moolchan; Marilyn A Huestis Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: Garry Milman; Allan J Barnes; David M Schwope; Eugene W Schwilke; Robert S Goodwin; Deana L Kelly; David A Gorelick; Marilyn A Huestis Journal: Anal Bioanal Chem Date: 2011-06-03 Impact factor: 4.142
Authors: Garry Milman; Allan J Barnes; David M Schwope; Eugene W Schwilke; William D Darwin; Robert S Goodwin; Deanna L Kelly; David A Gorelick; Marilyn A Huestis Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2010-06-08 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: Dayong Lee; Garry Milman; David M Schwope; Allan J Barnes; David A Gorelick; Marilyn A Huestis Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2012-04-24 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: Nicolaos Christodoulides; Richard De La Garza; Glennon W Simmons; Michael P McRae; Jorge Wong; Thomas F Newton; Regina Smith; James J Mahoney; Justin Hohenstein; Sobeyda Gomez; Pierre N Floriano; Humberto Talavera; Daniel J Sloan; David E Moody; David M Andrenyak; Thomas R Kosten; Ahmed Haque; John T McDevitt Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2015-05-22 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Matthew N Newmeyer; Nathalie A Desrosiers; Dayong Lee; Damodara R Mendu; Allan J Barnes; David A Gorelick; Marilyn A Huestis Journal: Drug Test Anal Date: 2014-03-20 Impact factor: 3.345