User experience and operational feasibility of four point-of-collection oral fluid drug-testing devices according to Brazilian traffic agents

Abstract Objective: Traffic fatalities in Brazil still rank among the highest worldwide, with an overall rate of 23.4 deaths/100,000 inhabitants/year. Although alcohol and drug use play an important role in traffic accidents, national data about their relative influence are scarce. Drug screening is not routinely performed by traffic agents because alcohol is the only substance regularly investigated in roadblocks. Therefore, we aimed to describe the initial traffic agent user experience for 4 handheld point-of-collection oral fluid drug testing devices used in routine roadblocks in Brazil, focusing on usage perceptions in hopes of generalizing this approach for other developing countries. Methods: Four different oral fluid collection devices were evaluated: The DDS2, the DOA MultiScreen, the Dräger DrugTest 5000, and the Multi-Drug Multi-Line Twist Screen Device. Fourteen trained traffic agents obtained oral fluid from 164 drivers and performed 37 qualitative evaluations of the devices. Traffic agents filled out a questionnaire focusing on 9 feasibility criteria: Overall simplicity for roadside operation; operational success; saliva sample collection time; sample analysis time; ease of sample preparation and analysis; agreement with observed clinical signs; overall hygiene and safety; sufficient operating instructions; and hygiene of saliva collection. These were weighted based on an expert panel and yielded an overall composite device experience score that ranged from 1 (poor) to 100 (excellent). Results: Ease of use, operational success, and acceptable collection and analysis time were considered the most important criteria by the expert panel. The results ranged from 27.3 to 88.9% for simplicity of use; 45.5 to 100.0% for operational success; 27.3 to 100% for acceptable collection time; and 36.4 to 100.0% for acceptable analysis time. The final device scores, based on the agents’ user experiences, ranked as follows: DOA MultiScreen: 49.3/100; Dräger DrugTest 5000: 82.4/100; Multi-Drug Multi-Line Twist Screen Device: 84.3/100; DDS2: 88.4/100. Conclusion: Based on the selected criteria, 3 of the 4 devices were considered useful by traffic agents in routine roadblock operations. The weighted evaluations suggest that their ease of use (handling, sampling analysis, and reliability), as well as their agreement with findings obtained by other means, defined their utility to traffic agents, although such appraisals must be further analyzed in future studies.

[1]  Roberto Sgalla,et al.  Evaluation of four oral fluid devices (DDS®, Drugtest 5000®, Drugwipe 5+® and RapidSTAT®) for on-site monitoring drugged driving in comparison with UHPLC-MS/MS analysis. , 2012, Forensic science international.

[2]  O. Abulseoud,et al.  Cannabis Edibles: Blood and Oral Fluid Cannabinoid Pharmacokinetics and Evaluation of Oral Fluid Screening Devices for Predicting Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol in Blood and Oral Fluid following Cannabis Brownie Administration. , 2017, Clinical chemistry.

[3]  H. Gjerde,et al.  Evaluation of Dräger DrugTest 5000 in a Naturalistic Setting. , 2018, Journal of analytical toxicology.

[4]  H. Gjerde,et al.  A comparison of alcohol and drug use by random motor vehicle drivers in Brazil and Norway. , 2014, The International journal on drug policy.

[5]  Kelsey Cooper,et al.  Roadside drug testing: An evaluation of the Alere DDS® 2 mobile test system. , 2018, Drug testing and analysis.

[6]  Jeremy D Davey,et al.  Improving Road Safety through Deterrence-Based Initiatives: A review of research. , 2011, Sultan Qaboos University medical journal.

[7]  R. D. De Boni,et al.  Psychiatric disorders among individuals who drive after the recent use of alcohol and drugs. , 2012, Revista brasileira de psiquiatria.

[8]  Robert B Voas,et al.  Effects of enforcement intensity on alcohol impaired driving crashes. , 2014, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[9]  W. Weinmann,et al.  Determination of Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinolic acid A (Δ9-THCA-A) in whole blood and plasma by LC-MS/MS and application in authentic samples from drivers suspected of driving under the influence of cannabis. , 2014, Forensic science international.

[10]  B. Logan,et al.  Detection and prevalence of drug use in arrested drivers using the Dräger Drug Test 5000 and Affiniton DrugWipe oral fluid drug screening devices. , 2014, Journal of analytical toxicology.

[11]  H. Gjerde,et al.  International trends in alcohol and drug use among vehicle drivers. , 2016, Forensic science review.

[12]  G. Andreuccetti,et al.  Amphetamine, cocaine and cannabinoids use among truck drivers on the roads in the State of Sao Paulo, Brazil. , 2012, Forensic science international.

[13]  M. Huestis,et al.  Current knowledge on cannabinoids in oral fluid. , 2014, Drug testing and analysis.

[14]  A. Verstraete,et al.  Oral fluid testing for driving under the influence of drugs: history, recent progress and remaining challenges. , 2005, Forensic science international.

[15]  B. Logan,et al.  Field Detection of Drugs of Abuse in Oral Fluid Using the Alere™ DDS®2 Mobile Test System with Confirmation by Liquid Chromatography Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). , 2018, Journal of analytical toxicology.

[16]  F. Pechansky,et al.  Reliability of point‐of‐collection testing devices for drugs of abuse in oral fluid: A systematic review and meta‐analysis , 2017, Journal of pharmaceutical and biomedical analysis.

[17]  F. Musshoff,et al.  Performance evaluation of on-site oral fluid drug screening devices in normal police procedure in Germany. , 2014, Forensic science international.

[18]  F. Pechansky,et al.  Why don't northern American solutions to drinking and driving work in southern America? , 2012, Addiction.

[19]  J. Mørland,et al.  Impairment related to blood drug concentrations of zopiclone and zolpidem compared to alcohol in apprehended drivers. , 2009, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[20]  J. Walsh,et al.  An evaluation of selected oral fluid point-of-collection drug-testing devices. , 2005, Journal of analytical toxicology.

[21]  Qinghui Suo,et al.  Investigation on Deterrence Effect of Legal Punishment Measures on Driving After Drinking in Chongqing, China , 2015, Traffic injury prevention.

[22]  M. Huestis,et al.  Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) examination characteristics of cannabis impairment. , 2016, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[23]  E. Barbería,et al.  Drivers under the influence of drugs of abuse: quantification of cocaine and impaired driving , 2013, The Medico-legal journal.

[24]  V. Leyton,et al.  [Alcohol use alone and in combination with other drugs among truck drivers on highways in São Paulo State, Brazil: a cross-sectional study]. , 2015, Cadernos de saude publica.

[25]  Randy W. Elder,et al.  Reviews of evidence regarding interventions to reduce alcohol-impaired driving. , 2001, American journal of preventive medicine.

[26]  M. Naghavi,et al.  Road traffic accidents: Global Burden of Disease study, Brazil and federated units, 1990 and 2015. , 2017, Revista brasileira de epidemiologia = Brazilian journal of epidemiology.

[27]  Lorrine D Edwards,et al.  Drugged Driving in Wisconsin: Oral Fluid Versus Blood. , 2017, Journal of analytical toxicology.

[28]  D. Beirness,et al.  An assessment of oral fluid drug screening devices , 2017 .