National Institute for Health and Welfare, Drug Analytics Unit, P.O. Box 30, FI-00271 Helsinki, Finland.
J Anal Toxicol. 2011 May;35(4):211-8. doi: 10.1093/anatox/35.4.211.
In this study, the performance of two on-site oral fluid drug-testing devices, DrugWipe 5(+) (Securetec) and Rapid STAT (Mavand), was assessed. The results obtained by the devices were compared with gas chromatography-mass spectrometry confirmation analysis results in oral fluid. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the tests, as well as positive and negative predictive values, were calculated based on the classified results of the comparison. Both of the devices were evaluated for their ability to meet toxicological cutoffs as set in the DRUID project (www.druid-project.eu) as well as those reported by the manufacturers. The evaluation was performed for relevant drug groups of both devices: amphetamines, cannabis, cocaine, and opiates. Additionally, Rapid STAT has a test for benzodiazepines included in the same device. Both tests seemed to perform quite well for amphetamines although they also gave negative results for cases with high concentrations. Also, the benzodiazepine test of Rapid STAT was at a relatively good level although only half of the positive test results were true positives using the test cutoffs. The same phenomenon was detected for the cannabis tests of both devices. The proper evaluation of cocaine and opiates tests was not applicable because of the very low number of positive cases.
在这项研究中，评估了两种现场口腔液毒品检测设备，即 DrugWipe 5(+)（Securetec）和 Rapid STAT（Mavand）的性能。将设备获得的结果与口腔液中的气相色谱-质谱确证分析结果进行了比较。根据比较的分类结果，计算了测试的灵敏度、特异性和准确性，以及阳性和阴性预测值。这两种设备都根据 DRUID 项目（www.druid-project.eu）以及制造商报告的毒理学截止值进行了评估。评估针对两种设备的相关药物组进行：苯丙胺类、大麻、可卡因和阿片类药物。此外，Rapid STAT 还在同一设备中包含了苯二氮䓬类药物的检测。尽管两种测试对高浓度的样本都给出了阴性结果，但对于苯丙胺类药物的测试似乎表现相当不错。同样，Rapid STAT 的苯二氮䓬测试水平也相当不错，尽管使用测试截止值时，只有一半的阳性测试结果是真正的阳性。这两种设备的大麻测试也存在同样的现象。由于阳性案例非常少，因此无法对可卡因和阿片类药物的测试进行适当的评估。
