Crouch Dennis J, Hersch Rebekah K, Cook Royer F, Frank James F, Walsh J Michael
Center for Human Toxicology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City 84112, USA.
J Anal Toxicol. 2002 Oct;26(7):493-9. doi: 10.1093/jat/26.7.493.
A field study was performed at two police agencies to evaluate the utility and accuracy of five on-site urine analysis drug-testing devices when used to test driving under the influence (DUI) arrestees. The devices evaluated were AccuSign, Rapid Drug Screen, TesTcup-5, TesTstik, and Triage. Standard workplace screening cut-off concentrations were used and samples were tested for marijuana, cocaine and metabolites, amphetamine(s), opiates, and PCP (except opiates 300 ng/mL). Four-hundred arrestees were recruited at each site, informed consent was obtained, and urine specimens were collected from each subject for analysis. Police officers conducted the testing with one device, and trained technicians performed testing with the other four devices. The device used by the officers was rotated. All positive and 5% of the negative samples were confirmed in a laboratory using mass spectrometry. Laboratory cut-off concentrations were 4 ng/mL for carboxy-THC; 50 ng/mL for benzoylecgonine; 100 ng/mL for amphetamines; 50 ng/mL for opiates; and 5 ng/mL for PCP. Approximately one-third (36%) of the subjects tested positive for at least one drug. No randomly selected sample, that tested negative on the devices, tested positive at the laboratory. Based on 800 specimens, the false-negative rate for each device was < 1% for all drug classes. A false positive was defined as testing positive with the device, but the specimen did not contain detectable drug, given the study reporting criteria. For marijuana, benzoylecgonine, and opiates, all devices had < or = 0.25% false-positive rates. For PCP, the false-positive rates were all < or = 1.5%. For amphetamine(s), the false-positive rates were all < or = 1.75%. These rates were adjusted because study confirmation batteries included methylenedioxyamphetamine, methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), additional over-the-counter sympathomimetic amines, hydromorphone, and hydrocodone. Without the expanded confirmation battery, false-positive rates approached 4% (Triage) for amphetamines and were > or = 2.25% for opiates. Fifty to 90% of the positive amphetamine(s) samples contained MDMA. A similar percentage of the opiate-positive samples contained hydromorphone or hydrocodone. When additional drugs were included in the confirmation testing, it was concluded that the on-site urine analysis drug-testing results were useful in DUI investigations.
在两家警察机构进行了一项现场研究,以评估五种现场尿液分析药物检测设备在用于检测涉嫌酒后驾车(DUI)被捕者时的效用和准确性。所评估的设备有AccuSign、快速药物筛查、TesTcup - 5、TesTstik和Triage。采用标准的工作场所筛查临界浓度,并对样本进行大麻、可卡因及其代谢物、苯丙胺类、阿片类药物和苯环己哌啶(除阿片类药物为300 ng/mL外)检测。在每个地点招募了400名被捕者,获得了知情同意,并从每个受试者收集尿液样本进行分析。警察用一种设备进行检测,训练有素的技术人员用其他四种设备进行检测。警察使用的设备轮流更换。所有阳性样本和5%的阴性样本在实验室采用质谱法进行确认。实验室临界浓度为:羧基 - 四氢大麻酚为4 ng/mL;苯甲酰爱康宁为50 ng/mL;苯丙胺类为100 ng/mL;阿片类药物为50 ng/mL;苯环己哌啶为5 ng/mL。约三分之一(36%)的受试者至少有一种药物检测呈阳性。在设备上检测为阴性的随机选择样本,在实验室检测均未呈阳性。基于800个样本,所有药物类别的每种设备的假阴性率均<1%。根据研究报告标准,假阳性定义为设备检测呈阳性,但样本中未检测到药物。对于大麻、苯甲酰爱康宁和阿片类药物,所有设备的假阳性率均≤0.25%。对于苯环己哌啶,假阳性率均≤1.5%。对于苯丙胺类,假阳性率均≤1.75%。这些比率进行了调整,因为研究确认组合包括亚甲二氧基苯丙胺、亚甲二氧基甲基苯丙胺(摇头丸)、其他非处方拟交感神经胺、氢吗啡酮和氢可酮。如果没有扩展的确认组合,苯丙胺类的假阳性率接近4%(Triage),阿片类药物的假阳性率≥2.25%。50%至90%的苯丙胺类阳性样本含有摇头丸。类似比例的阿片类药物阳性样本含有氢吗啡酮或氢可酮。当确认检测中包括其他药物时,得出结论:现场尿液分析药物检测结果在酒后驾车调查中是有用的。