Evaluation of RapidSTAT®, DrugWipe® 6S, DrugScreen® 5TK and DrugScreen® 7TR for on-site drug testing in German police roadside traffic patrol.

Driving under the influence of drugs (DUID) remains a subject of concern worldwide, and its increasing trend is likely to continue. Therefore, there is a constant need for reliable on-site drug tests to identify drugged drivers during roadside patrols. Performance and reliability of four on-site drug tests were evaluated among a high number of DUID cases in Germany. Results of oral fluid (OF) (RapidSTAT® and DrugWipe® 6S) and urine (DrugScreen® 5TK and 7TR) test devices were compared with corresponding serum/plasma results obtained by confirmation analyses in consideration of recommended analytical limits for substances pertaining the annex of the German Road Traffic Code ('Straßenverkehrsgesetz', StVG) s. 24a (2). Overall, the screening devices performed well for individual drugs; however, none of the test devices assessed in this study fulfilled the ROSITA-1 criteria (sensitivity, specificity ≥ 90% and accuracy ≥ 95%) for all substances. Our data demonstrated that both urine tests showed high sensitivities for most compounds. DrugWipe® 6S (94%) and RapidSTAT® (93%) revealed high sensitivities, especially for amphetamine screening. Poor specificities (<90%) and accuracies (<95%) were observed for all tests except for low-prevalent substances (e.g., opiates). For drug testing in OF, Δ9 -tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) still seems to be a compound of concern due to poor sensitivity (RapidSTAT®, 77%; DrugWipe® 6S, 85%), although the results indicate improvements compared with previously reported data. Although the obtained data indicate reliable detection for some substances, deployment of trained police officers is inevitable to identify DUID suspects by signs of recent use and recognising impairment.

Performance evaluation of on-site oral fluid drug screening devices in normal police procedure in Germany.

There is a need for quick and reliable methods for rapid screening of drug-influenced drivers on the roadside by police. Because the window of detection in oral fluid is more similar to blood than to urine, this matrix should therefore be appropriate for screening procedures. The performance of the Rapid STAT(®) (Mavand Solution GmbH, Mössingen, Germany), DrugWipe5/5+(®) (Securetec Detektions-Systeme AG, Brunnthal, Germany) and Dräger DrugTest(®) 5000 (Draeger Safety AG & Co. KGaA, Luebeck, Germany) on-site oral fluid devices was evaluated with random oral fluid specimens from car drivers in North Rhine-Westphalia (Germany). Additionally, some drivers were checked using an on-site urine device (DrugScreen(®), NAL von Minden, Regensburg, Germany). During a 11-month period, 1.212 drivers were tested. Both OF and urine on-site tests were compared to serum results. The following sensitivities were obtained by the oral fluid devices: THC 71% (DrugWipe(®)), 87% (Dräger), 91% (RapidSTAT); opiates 95% (Dräger), 100% (DrugWipe(®), RapidSTAT(®)); amphetamine 84% (DrugTest(®) 5000), 90% (RapidSTAT(®)), 100% (DrugTest(®) 5000); methamphetamine 50% (DrugTest(®) 5000), 100% (RapidSTAT(®)); cocaine 76% (DrugTest(®) 5000), 100% (DrugWipe(®), RapidSTAT(®)); methadone 33-63%, and benzodiazepines 0-33% (both with a low number of positives). THC specificity was especially low (29% [DrugWipe(®)] and 47% [DrugTest(®) 5000]) due to low cut-off concentrations. These data were similar to those obtained from the literature (e.g., DRUID project). The urine screening device showed a good sensitivity (THC 93%, opiate 94%, amphetamine 94%, methamphetamine 75% (low number of positives), cocaine 100%) and also an acceptable specificity (39%, 86%, 63%, 77%, 47%, respectively). Although oral fluid may be a useful matrix for on-site testing of drugged drivers, it is evident that oral fluid devices still show a lack of sensitivity (methamphetamine, benzodiazepines) and specificity (THC). Poor results for benzodiazepines may be explained by the small positive test number. Although the sensitivity for THC came out higher than compared to the literature, specificity is not yet satisfactory (only <90%). Furthermore, specificity was poor due to lowered cut-offs resulting in multiple false positive tests.