DUID: Oral Fluid and Blood Confirmation Compared in Belgium

Linden, Trudy Van der; Legrand, Sara‐Ann; Silverans, Peter; Verstraete, Alain G.

doi:10.1093/jat/bks038

Cited by 35 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…OF is easy to collect, non-invasive, and associated with recent cannabis intake (Bosker and Huestis, 2009; Drummer, 2006; Wille et al, 2014). OF-based DUIC legislation exists in some jurisdictions (Drummer et al, 2007; Huestis et al, 2011; Van der Linden et al, 2012); however, limited simultaneous driving and OF concentration data preclude direct association with impairment.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cannabis effects on driving lateral control with and without alcohol

Hartman

Brown

Milavetz

et al. 2015

Drug and Alcohol Dependence

205

173

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Effects of cannabis, the most commonly encountered non-alcohol drug in driving under the influence cases, are heavily debated. We aimed to determine how blood Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentrations relate to driving impairment, with and without alcohol. Methods Current occasional (≥1×/last 3months, ≤3days/week) cannabis smokers drank placebo or low-dose alcohol, and inhaled 500mg placebo, low (2.9%)-THC, or high (6.7%)-THC vaporized cannabis over 10min ad libitum in separate sessions (within-subject design, 6 conditions). Participants drove (National Advanced Driving Simulator, University of Iowa) simulated drives (~0.8h duration). Blood, oral fluid (OF) and breath alcohol samples were collected before (0.17h, 0.42h) and after (1.4h, 2.3h) driving that occurred 0.5–1.3h after inhalation. We evaluated standard deviations of lateral position (lane weave, SDLP) and steering angle, lane departures/min, and maximum lateral acceleration. Results In N=18 completers (13 men, ages 21–37years), cannabis and alcohol increased SDLP. Blood THC concentrations of 8.2 and 13.1μg/L during driving increased SDLP similar to 0.05 and 0.08g/210L breath alcohol concentrations, the most common legal alcohol limits. Cannabis-alcohol SDLP effects were additive rather than synergistic, with 5μg/L THC+0.05g/210L alcohol showing similar SDLP to 0.08g/210L alcohol alone. Only alcohol increased lateral acceleration and the less-sensitive lane departures/min parameters. OF effectively documented cannabis exposure, although with greater THC concentration variability than paired blood samples. Conclusions SDLP was a sensitive cannabis-related lateral control impairment measure. During-drive blood THC ≥8.2μg/L increased SDLP similar to notably-impairing alcohol concentrations. Despite OF’s screening value, OF variability poses challenges in concentration-based effects interpretation. KEYWORDS: Cannabis, Alcohol, Driving, Lateral Control, THC, Oral Fluid

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cannabis effects on driving lateral control with and without alcohol

Hartman

Brown

Milavetz

et al. 2015

Drug and Alcohol Dependence

205

173

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore, rapid and secure screening methods are very important. [1][2][3] Cocaine is a powerful addictive stimulant drug that increases levels of dopamine. The metabolism of cocaine has been thoroughly studied: It is metabolized to partially active metabolites benzoylecgonine and methylecgonine.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantitative Analysis of 26 Opioids, Cocaine, and Their Metabolites in Human Blood by Ultra Performance Liquid Chromatography–Tandem Mass Spectrometry

Fernández

Wille²,

Kummer³

et al. 2013

Therapeutic Drug Monitoring

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A sensitive and selective ultra performance liquid chromatographic-tandem mass spectrometric method was developed and fully validated for the simultaneous determination of (in order of chromatographic elution) methylecgonine, pholcodine, morphine, hydromorphone, oxymorphone, norcodeine, codeine, dihydrocodeine, oxycodone, 6-Monoacetylmorphine (6-MAM), hydrocodone, ethylmorphine, norfentanyl, benzoylecgonine, tramadol, normeperidine, meperidine, cocaine, pentazocine, cocaethylene, fentanyl, norbuprenorphine, 2-ethylidine-1,5-dimethyl-3,3-diphenylpyrrolidine (EDDP), buprenorphine, propoxyphene, and methadone in blood. The matrixes analyzed during the validation experiments were as follows: citrated blank plasma for calibrators, fluoride blank plasma for internal quality control (QC), lyophilized serum for external QC, fluoride plasma and whole blood for authentic samples, and lyophilized serum and whole blood for proficiency testing schemes. Samples were extracted with cation exchange solid-phase extraction cartridges. The target drugs were separated and quantified in a chromatographic run of 8.1 minutes using 0.1% formic acid in water and methanol (with 0.1% formic acid) as mobile phase. The limit of quantification ranged from 0.5 to 2.5 ng/mL depending on the compound and the therapeutic concentration. The intra- and interassay precision was less than 15% for all the compounds (except for pentazocine and EDDP, which was <20%) determined with 2 internal and 2 external QC samples, and the bias was within ±15% (except for methylecgonine, which was <20%). Extraction efficiency was greater than 70% for all the compounds except for EDDP. Matrix effects were evaluated with authentic blood samples (n = 10), and they ranged from 47 to 95%, but they were compensated for most analytes using deuterated analogs as internal standards. Prepared samples were stable for 62 hours in the autosampler. This method was successfully applied to authentic samples (n = 120), involving the use of heroin, cocaine, tramadol, and methadone, and to proficiency testing schemes.

show abstract

“…In order to increase the number of drug-positive drivers slightly, some drivers admitted to hospital after being injured in traffic crashes were included (8.3%), as well as some drivers who were suspected for DUID and therefore arrested by the police (2.5%). Oral Samples were analysed for amphetamine, methamphetamine, cocaine and tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) by high performance or ultra-performance liquid chromatography with single or tandem mass spectrometric detection (LC-MS or UPLC-MS) or with gas chromatography with mass spectrometric detection (GC-MS) [20][21][22][23][24]. The analytical methods used by the four involved laboratories had different limits of quantitation and thus also different cut-off concentrations; therefore, the maximum analytical cut-off concentrations used by any of the laboratories were chosen for this study, see Table 1.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%