Correlation between oral fluid and blood THC concentration: A systematic review and discussion of policy implications

Reliability of roadside oral fluid testing devices for ∆9 -tetrahydrocannabinol (∆9 -THC) detection

Driving under the influence of cannabis (DUIC) is increasing worldwide, and cannabis is the most prevalent drug after alcohol in impaired driving cases, emphasizing the need for a reliable traffic enforcement strategy. ∆9 -tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) detection in oral fluid has great potential for identifying recent cannabis use; however, additional data are needed on the sensitivities, specificities, and efficiencies of different oral fluid devices for detecting cannabinoids at the roadside by police during routine traffic safety enforcement efforts. At the roadside, 8945 oral fluid THC screening tests were performed with four devices: AquilaScan®, Dräger DrugTest®, WipeAlyser Reader®, and Druglizer®. A total of 530 samples screened positive for THC (5.9%) and were analyzed by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry at multiple cutoff concentrations (2 ng/mL, 10 ng/mL, and manufacturers' recommended device cutoffs) to investigate device performance. Results varied substantially, with sensitivities of 0%-96.8%, specificities of 89.8%-98.5%, and efficiencies of 84.3%-97.8%. The Dräger DrugTest® outperformed the other devices with a 96.8% sensitivity, 97.1% specificity, and 97.0% efficiency at a 5-ng/mL LC-MS/MS confirmation cutoff. The WipeAlyser Reader® had good performance with a 91.4% sensitivity, 97.2% specificity, and 96.4% efficiency. AquilaScan® and Druglizer® had unacceptable performance for cannabinoid detection, highlighted by sensitivity <13%. The choice of roadside oral fluid testing device must offer good analytical performance for cannabinoids because of its high prevalence of use and impact on road safety.

Roadside screening tests for cannabis use: A systematic review

As more countries legalize recreational cannabis, roadside screening programs are imperative to detect and deter driving under the influence of cannabis. This systematic review evaluated roadside screening tests for cannabis use. We searched six databases (inception-March 2020) and grey literature sources for primary studies evaluating test characteristics of roadside screening tests for cannabis use compared to laboratory tests for cannabinoids in blood or oral fluid. The synthesis was focused on sensitivity and specificity of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) detection. 101 studies were included. Oral fluid tests were higher in specificity and lower in sensitivity compared to urine tests when evaluated against blood laboratory tests. Oral fluid tests were higher in sensitivity and similar in specificity compared to observational tests when evaluated against blood and oral fluid laboratory tests. Sensitivity was variable among oral fluid tests; two instrumented immunoassays (Draeger DrugTest 5000 [5 ng/mL THC cut-off] and Alere DDS 2 Mobile Test System) appeared to perform best, but definitive conclusions could not be drawn due to imprecise estimates. Specificities were similar. Overall, oral fluid tests showed the most promise for use in roadside screening for blood THC levels over legal limits; their continued development and testing are warranted. Urine tests are generally inadvisable, and observational tests require sensitivity improvements.