| Titre : | Inventory of state-of-the-art road side drug testing equipment. ROSITA. Deliverable D2 |
| Auteurs : | N. SAMYN ; VIAENE B. ; VANDEVENNE L. ; A. VERSTRAETE |
| Type de document : | Rapport |
| Editeur : | Gent : Univ. of Gent, 1999 |
| Format : | 102 p. / tabl. ; ill. |
| Note générale : | Project funded by the European Commission under the transport RTD programme of the 4th framework programme |
| Langues: | Anglais |
| Discipline : | PRO (Produits, mode d'action, méthode de dépistage / Substances, action mode, screening methods) |
| Mots-clés : |
Thésaurus mots-clés DEPISTAGE ; URINE ; SUEUR ; CONDUITE DE VEHICULE ; METHODE ; TEST ; SALIVE ; MEDICAMENTS ; TOXICOLOGIE ; PRODUIT ILLICITE ; CANNABIS ; OPIACES ; COCAINE ; AMPHETAMINES ; BENZODIAZEPINES ; ANTIDEPRESSEURS |
| Résumé : |
Market study: Nineteen original devices have been documented in the market study of this work package. Sixteen are designed for the screening of urine samples; all but one are manufactured in the U.S. They represent a total of approximately 33 brand names on the international market. Of the three devices that were originally developed for saliva, two are manufactured in Europe. One device can also be applied to sweat. Since most of the on-site devices were tested in the laboratory, an evaluation of their user friendliness was done by three members of the laboratory personnel. The ease-of-use, the quality of the package insert and the interpretation of the result were taken into account. Approximately sixty percent of the evaluated devices had a users quotation of good to very good, thirty percent was considered acceptable, only one was not acceptable. For the interpretation of the screening result there are different possibilities: for more than ninety percent of the tests, the appearance of a control line and the presence of a second line indicates a negative result. The intensity of the line is not important. A clear distinction between positive and negative results requires some training before routine testing can be carried out. It is very important that the validity of the test is demonstrated by the appearance of a control line. Only Frontline (Roche Diagnostics) and Drugwipe (Securetec GmbH) do not have a built-in control. Ideally, the test data should be read and saved electronically.
Most of the manufacturers of the on-site urine tests use the SAMHSA cut-offs for drugs of abuse. Some exceptions are observed. If the tests are too sensitive or if the experimental cut-off values are different from the theoretical cut-off values, the number of false positives increases. In the U.S., the screening cut-offs for the amphetamine class (1000 ng/ml) are only set for amphetamine(s) and methamphetamine(s). In a number of European countries, the increasing abuse of ecstasy requires the use of a screening test sufficiently sensitive for MDMA and its analogues (MDEA, MBDB). Very few data on the other designer amphetamines are available. Moreover, some nasal decongestants and anorectic medication can interfere in an AMP type test. All opiate-type tests cross-react to a high extent with a number of cough suppressants, analgesics and morphine agonists and antagonists. Confirmation by GC/MS is absolutely necessary to establish the cause of the positive screening result. In conclusion, the main problem issues are the objective interpretation of the result (absence of a reader), the detection of ecstasy and other designer amphetamines, and the specificity of the tests for the illicit amphetamines and morphine. Experimental Study: Seven non-instrumental urine devices were evaluated in the laboratory for the screening of amphetamines/methamphetamines, cannabinoids, cocaine and opiates. (Extract of the publication) |
| Domaine : | Plusieurs produits / Several products |
| Refs biblio. : | 16 |
| Affiliation : | Belgique. Belgium. |
| Centre Emetteur : | 13 OFDT |
| Cote : | E00655-B |
| Titre précédent : | |
| Titre suivant : |
Exemplaires
| Disponibilité |
|---|
| aucun exemplaire |
Accueil
