Roadside drug testing: An evaluation of the Alere DDS^®2 mobile test system

Abstract

The number of drivers using drugs has increased over the last few years, and is likely to continue its upward trend. Testing drivers for alcohol use is routine and standardized, but the same is not true for the identification of driving under the influence of drugs (DUID). The Drug Evaluation and Classification Program (DECP) was developed to train police officers to recognize the signs and symptoms of recent drug use and remains an invaluable program; however, there are insufficient numbers of these highly trained drug recognition experts (DREs) available to attend every potential drug involved traffic incident. While blood and urine samples are used to test for drugs in a driver, both have disadvantages, particularly as they pertain to the length of time required after a traffic stop to sample collection. Therefore, the development of oral fluid testing devices which can be operated at the roadside and have the potential to assist officers in the identification of drug use is a major advancement in DUID cases. This project evaluated the performance of one instrumental oral fluid roadside testing device (Alere DDS®2) compared to DRE opinion, oral fluid laboratory-based analysis, and routine blood testing. The results showed that there was a good correlation with DRE observations and the device performance was >80% in all drug categories compared to laboratory-based analytical testing, both in oral fluid and blood, with few exceptions. The instrument can be considered a useful tool to assist law enforcement in identifying a drugged driver. Because the device does not test for all potentially impairing drugs, the opinion of the police officer regarding the condition of the driver should still be considered the most important aspect for arrest and further action.

Immunochromatography screening devices for cannabinoids in oral fluid sample

“…Other studies established that screening devices must present higher standards (sensitivity ≥ 80%, specificity ≥ 90% and accuracy ≥ 95%), so that it can be considered a satisfactory test (Strano-Rossi et al, 2012). Based on this information, and the data collected in our review, it is possible to verify that only Dräger DrugTest 5000 ® (DDT5000) and Alere TM DDS ® 2 (DDS2) devices fits the recommendation for the investigation of cannabis metabolites in OF, presenting sensitivity and specificity greater than 80% in a considerable number of studies (Beirness, Smith, 2017;Gjerde et al, 2018;Newmeyer et al, 2017;Rohrig et al, 2018;Strano-Rossi et al, 2012;Swortwood et al, 2017). However, it is important to note that some studies have found low specificity for the DDT5000 device, even though they have found satisfactory sensitivity (Domingo-Salvany et al, 2017;Lema-Atán et al, 2019;Logan, Mohr, Talpins, 2014).…”

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

“…By focusing on these issues, the Roadside Testing Assessment (ROSITA)-1 and ROSITA-2 and the Driving Under the Influence of Drugs, Alcohol and Medicines (DRUID) projects evaluated the performance parameters (sensitivity, specificity and accuracy) of several on-site drug tests in urine and, especially, in OF, with unsatisfactory results overall. [3][4][5] However, in the last few years, several publications have addressed the general evaluation of on-site drug tests in roadside traffic controls using OF as biological matrix [6][7][8][9] and the investigation of a correlation between OF and blood concentrations of centrally active substances. [10][11][12] Some of those studies concluded that OF is a suitable matrix for the detection of recent drug consumption.…”