Jan Gryczynski1, Robert P Schwartz2, Shannon Gwin Mitchell2, Kevin E O'Grady3, Steven J Ondersma4. 1. Friends Research Institute, Inc., 1040 Park Avenue, Suite 103, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA. Electronic address: jgryczynski@friendsresearch.org. 2. Friends Research Institute, Inc., 1040 Park Avenue, Suite 103, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA. 3. University of Maryland, College Park, Department of Psychology, College Park, MD 20742, USA. 4. Wayne State University, 42 W Warren Ave, Detroit, MI 48202, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study sought to examine the utility of hair testing as a research measure of drug use among individuals with moderate-risk drug use based on the internationally validated Alcohol, Smoking, and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST). METHODS: This study is a secondary analysis using baseline data from a randomized trial of brief intervention for drug misuse, in which 360 adults with moderate-risk drug use were recruited from two community clinics in New Mexico, USA. The current study compared self-reported drug use on the ASSIST with laboratory analysis of hair samples using a standard commercially available 5-panel test with assay screening and gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) confirmation. Both self-report and hair testing covered a 3-month period. RESULTS: Overall concordance between hair testing and self-report was 57.5% (marijuana), 86.5% (cocaine), 85.8% (amphetamines), and 74.3% (opioids). Specificity of hair testing at standard laboratory cut-offs exceeded 90% for all drugs, but sensitivity of hair testing relative to self-report was low, identifying only 52.3% (127/243) of self-disclosed marijuana users, 65.2% (30/46) of cocaine users, 24.2% (8/33) of amphetamine users, and 2.9% (2/68) of opioid users. Among participants who disclosed using marijuana orcocaine in the past 3 months, participants with a negative hair test tended to report lower-frequency use of those drugs (p<.001 for marijuana and cocaine). CONCLUSIONS: Hair testing can be useful in studies with moderate-risk drug users, but the potential for under-identification of low-frequency use suggests that researchers should consider employing low detection cut-offs and using hair testing in conjunction with self-report.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: This study sought to examine the utility of hair testing as a research measure of drug use among individuals with moderate-risk drug use based on the internationally validated Alcohol, Smoking, and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST). METHODS: This study is a secondary analysis using baseline data from a randomized trial of brief intervention for drug misuse, in which 360 adults with moderate-risk drug use were recruited from two community clinics in New Mexico, USA. The current study compared self-reported drug use on the ASSIST with laboratory analysis of hair samples using a standard commercially available 5-panel test with assay screening and gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) confirmation. Both self-report and hair testing covered a 3-month period. RESULTS: Overall concordance between hair testing and self-report was 57.5% (marijuana), 86.5% (cocaine), 85.8% (amphetamines), and 74.3% (opioids). Specificity of hair testing at standard laboratory cut-offs exceeded 90% for all drugs, but sensitivity of hair testing relative to self-report was low, identifying only 52.3% (127/243) of self-disclosed marijuana users, 65.2% (30/46) of cocaine users, 24.2% (8/33) of amphetamine users, and 2.9% (2/68) of opioid users. Among participants who disclosed using marijuana or cocaine in the past 3 months, participants with a negative hair test tended to report lower-frequency use of those drugs (p<.001 for marijuana and cocaine). CONCLUSIONS: Hair testing can be useful in studies with moderate-risk drug users, but the potential for under-identification of low-frequency use suggests that researchers should consider employing low detection cut-offs and using hair testing in conjunction with self-report.
Authors: Marilyn A Huestis; Richard A Gustafson; Eric T Moolchan; Allan Barnes; James A Bourland; Stacy A Sweeney; Eugene F Hayes; Patrick M Carpenter; Michael L Smith Journal: Forensic Sci Int Date: 2006-09-11 Impact factor: 2.395
Authors: Robert P Schwartz; Jan Gryczynski; Shannon Gwin Mitchell; Arturo Gonzales; Ana Moseley; Thomas R Peterson; Steven J Ondersma; Kevin E O'Grady Journal: Addiction Date: 2014-03-10 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Natalie S Levy; Joseph J Palamar; Stephen J Mooney; Charles M Cleland; Katherine M Keyes Journal: Ann Epidemiol Date: 2022-01-03 Impact factor: 6.996
Authors: Pritika C Kumar; Charles M Cleland; Marc N Gourevitch; John Rotrosen; Shiela Strauss; Linnea Russell; Jennifer McNeely Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2016-06-22 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Jan Gryczynski; Kevin E O'Grady; Shannon Gwin Mitchell; Steven J Ondersma; Robert P Schwartz Journal: J Addict Med Date: 2016 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 3.702
Authors: Jan Gryczynski; Shannon Gwin Mitchell; Arturo Gonzales; Ana Moseley; Thomas R Peterson; Steven J Ondersma; Kevin E O'Grady; Robert P Schwartz Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2014-09-16