BACKGROUND: Oral fluid (OF) testing offers noninvasive sample collection for on-site drug testing; however, to date, test performance for Δ(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) detection has had unacceptable diagnostic sensitivity. On-site tests must accurately identify cannabis exposure because this drug accounts for the highest prevalence in workplace drug testing and driving under the influence of drugs (DUID) programs. METHODS: Ten cannabis smokers (9 males, 1 female) provided written informed consent to participate in this institutional review board-approved study and smoked 1 6.8%-THC cigarette ad libitum. OF was collected with the Draeger DrugTest(®) 5000 test cassette and Quantisal™ device 0.5 h before and up to 22 h after smoking. Test cassettes were analyzed within 15 min (n = 66), and Quantisal GC-MS THC results obtained within 24 h. Final THC detection times and test performances were assessed at different cannabinoid cutoffs. RESULTS: Diagnostic sensitivity, diagnostic specificity, and efficiency at DrugTest 5000's 5 μg/L screening cutoff and various THC confirmation cutoffs were 86.2-90.7, 75.0-77.8, and 84.8-87.9%, respectively. Last detection times were >22 h, longer than previously suggested. Confirmation of 11-nor-9-carboxy-THC, absent in THC smoke, minimized the potential for passive OF contamination and still provided 22-h windows of detection, appropriate for workplace drug testing, whereas confirmation of cannabidiol, and/or cannabinol yielded shorter 6-h windows of detection, appropriate for DUID OF testing. CONCLUSIONS: The DrugTest 5000 on-site device provided high diagnostic sensitivity for detection of cannabinoid exposure, and the selection of OF confirmation analytes and cutoffs provided appropriate windows of detection to meet the goals of different drug testing programs.
BACKGROUND: Oral fluid (OF) testing offers noninvasive sample collection for on-site drug testing; however, to date, test performance for Δ(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) detection has had unacceptable diagnostic sensitivity. On-site tests must accurately identify cannabis exposure because this drug accounts for the highest prevalence in workplace drug testing and driving under the influence of drugs (DUID) programs. METHODS: Ten cannabis smokers (9 males, 1 female) provided written informed consent to participate in this institutional review board-approved study and smoked 1 6.8%-THC cigarette ad libitum. OF was collected with the Draeger DrugTest(®) 5000 test cassette and Quantisal™ device 0.5 h before and up to 22 h after smoking. Test cassettes were analyzed within 15 min (n = 66), and Quantisal GC-MS THC results obtained within 24 h. Final THC detection times and test performances were assessed at different cannabinoid cutoffs. RESULTS: Diagnostic sensitivity, diagnostic specificity, and efficiency at DrugTest 5000's 5 μg/L screening cutoff and various THC confirmation cutoffs were 86.2-90.7, 75.0-77.8, and 84.8-87.9%, respectively. Last detection times were >22 h, longer than previously suggested. Confirmation of 11-nor-9-carboxy-THC, absent in THC smoke, minimized the potential for passive OF contamination and still provided 22-h windows of detection, appropriate for workplace drug testing, whereas confirmation of cannabidiol, and/or cannabinol yielded shorter 6-h windows of detection, appropriate for DUID OF testing. CONCLUSIONS: The DrugTest 5000 on-site device provided high diagnostic sensitivity for detection of cannabinoid exposure, and the selection of OF confirmation analytes and cutoffs provided appropriate windows of detection to meet the goals of different drug testing programs.
Authors: J Michael Walsh; Dennis J Crouch; Jonathan P Danaceau; Leo Cangianelli; Laura Liddicoat; Randy Adkins Journal: J Anal Toxicol Date: 2007 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 3.367
Authors: Dennis J Crouch; J M Walsh; Ron Flegel; Leo Cangianelli; Jakub Baudys; Randy Atkins Journal: J Anal Toxicol Date: 2005 May-Jun Impact factor: 3.367
Authors: Marleen Laloup; Maria Del Mar Ramirez Fernandez; Michelle Wood; Gert De Boeck; Viviane Maes; Nele Samyn Journal: Forensic Sci Int Date: 2006-07-13 Impact factor: 2.395
Authors: Olaf H Drummer; Dimitri Gerostamoulos; Mark Chu; Philip Swann; Martin Boorman; Ian Cairns Journal: Forensic Sci Int Date: 2007-07-20 Impact factor: 2.395
Authors: Rosalie Liccardo Pacula; Beau Kilmer; Alexander C Wagenaar; Frank J Chaloupka; Jonathan P Caulkins Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2014-04-17 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Danielle McCartney; Richard C Kevin; Anastasia S Suraev; Christopher Irwin; Ronald R Grunstein; Camilla M Hoyos; Iain S McGregor Journal: Drug Test Anal Date: 2021-08-30 Impact factor: 3.234
Authors: Sarah K Himes; Karl B Scheidweiler; Olof Beck; David A Gorelick; Nathalie A Desrosiers; Marilyn A Huestis Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2013-09-17 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: Nathalie A Desrosiers; Garry Milman; Damodara R Mendu; Dayong Lee; Allan J Barnes; David A Gorelick; Marilyn A Huestis Journal: Anal Bioanal Chem Date: 2014-05-15 Impact factor: 4.142