Better enforcement of the drugs and driving legislation requires training of the police officers in drug recognition and the availability of reliable roadside drug tests. Onsite immunoassays were used for the detection of drugs in urine, oral fluid (saliva) and/or sweat in 2968 subjects in 8 countries. In Belgium, Finland, Germany, Italy, Norway and Spain the tests were evaluated at the roadside or in a police station. Confirmation analyses on blood, urine, oral fluid and/or sweat (GC/MS, but in some cases GC/ECD and HPLC-DAD) were performed. Police officers liked having the tools to detect drugged drivers, and they were creative in finding solutions to the practical and operational problems. Onsite drug testing gave police confidence, saved time and money. Police officers had no major objections to collecting specimens. Oral fluid was the preferred specimen. Obtaining a urine specimen was no problem if the necessary facilities (e.g. a sanitary van) were available. Some onsite urine tests (Rapid Drug Screen, SYVA Rapidtest, Dipro Drugscreen 5, Triage) yielded good results (accuracy greater than 95%, sensitivity and specificity greater than 90%), but none gave a good result for all assays. Oral fluid and sweat are promising specimens, sometimes better than urine, but more development of the onsite tests is needed. Sampling of these specimens was well accepted by drivers. Drugwipe, Cozart Rapiscan and Avitar Oralscreen were not sufficiently reliable (accuracy between 50 and 81%). Progress is needed for sampling, duration of the test, sample volume, reliability and sensitivity for cannabis and benzodiazepines. Roadside drug tests were considered to be very useful. In the future, oral fluid seems the most promising, but the presently available tests are not satisfactory. Urine tests can be an acceptable alternative. (Author/publisher) For the covering abstract of the conference see ITRD Abstract No. E201067.
Abstract