Can “Oral Fluid” be Used Instead of “Urine” for Rapid Screening of Drug of Abuse: A Prospective Pilot Study

Abstract

Introduction

Spot urine tests are commonly employed by emergency physicians in Hong Kong to detect recent abusive drug exposure. Spot tests utilising oral fluid are gaining its popularity in other parts of the world. There was lack of evidence about employment of rapid oral fluid test (ROFT) in the local emergency medical settings. The objective of this study is to determine the operating characteristics of ROFT, and to compare its agreement with the bedside urine immunoassay test (BUIT).

Setting

The emergency department and the substance abuse clinic of a regional hospital.

Methods

This was a single-centered cross-sectional study of diagnostic test. Patients suspected to have drug abuse were tested using either one or both of the commercially available ROFT and BUIT. The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of both tests were calculated with reference to the laboratory urine toxicology screening results. The agreement between ROFT and BUIT was calculated.

Results

For the detection of ketamine and methamphetamine (the two most prevalent abusive substances), ROFT had 72-100% sensitivity and 93-100% specificity, which were comparable to that of BUIT (74-100% sensitivity and 100% specificity). The overall observed agreement of ROFT and BUIT results was at least 96%. There was good agreement between ROFT and BUIT with kappa values of 0.90-1.00.

Conclusion

In this pilot study, the operating characteristics of ROFT are comparable with that of BUIT, with both tests showing good agreements in the detection of ketamine and methamphetamine uses. ROFT can potentially be employed as an alternative investigation for rapid diagnosis of patients with suspected drug abuse. (Hong Kong j.emerg.med. 2015;22:265-269)

Keywords

Bedside testings diagnosis drug abuse testing substance abuse detection saliva

References

Fendrich

, Johnson

T.P.

, Wislar

J.S.

, Hubbell

Drug test feasibility in a general population household survey. Drug Alcohol Depend 2004; 73(3): 237–50.

Cone

E.J.

Saliva testing for drugs of abuse. Ann NY Acad Sci 1993; 694: 91–127.

Cone

E.J.

Legal, workplace, and treatment drug testing with alternate biological matrices on a global scale. Forensic Sci Int 2001; 121(1-2): 7–15.

Maurer

H.H.

Current role of liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry in clinical and forensic toxicology. Anal Bioanal Chem 2007; 388(7): 1315–25.

Yacoubian

G.S.

Jr , Wish

E.D.

, Pérez

D.M.

A comparison of saliva testing to urinalysis in an arrestee population. J Psychoactive Drugs 2001; 33(3): 289–94.

Cone

E.J.

, Huestis

M.A.

Interpretation of oral fluid tests for drugs of abuse. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2007; 1098: 51–103.

Yacoubian

G.S.

Jr , Cone

E.J.

A comparison between the Intercept Oral Fluid Collection Device and urinalysis among Balitmore City probationers. J Crim Just 2006; 34: 413–24.

Buderer

N.M.

Statistical methodology: I. Incorporating the prevalence of disease into the sample size calculation for sensitivity and specificity. Acad Emerg Med 1996; 3(9): 895–900.