HIGH SENSITIVITY IMMUNOCHROMATOGRAPHIC TEST FOR DETECTION OF ILLICIT DRUGS IN ORAL FLUID: A FIGHT AGAINST DRUGS OF ABUSE

Purpose: Illicit drug use poses a great threat to the integrity of our society and can lead to major problems such as traffic and workplace accidents, homicides, theft, terrorism mongering and suicide to name a few. Among the variety of commonly used drugs-of-abuse, cannabis, cocaine, opiates, amphetamine and its derivatives have been the most reported. Oral fluid drug testing has been gaining interest as an accurate screening method for the detection of illicit drugs in suspects under influence. In this study, the accuracy of NARCOTEC oral fluid drug-detection system was evaluated in comparison with the cut-off values. Methods: A handheld device (NARCOTEC version 01.02, Morpho Biotec Limited, London, UK), NARCOTEC test, was used to interpret a total of seven illegal drugs (benzodiazepines, benzodiazepines, opiates, methamphetamine / MDMA, amphetamine, ∆9-THC and cocaine) test results. For the positive control tests, the cassettes were opened and 80 µL of each positive control solution was pipetted onto the appropriate sample pad lane and allowed 3-5 mins to migrate to the end of the nitrocellulose membrane before the cassettes were read by the handheld device. For the negative control tests, the negative control solutions were pipetted at 80 µL to each of the three lanes without any distinction and allowed 3-5 mins to flow before the cassettes were read by the handheld device (Figure 2). 40 positive and 40 negative control tests were performed and read by the handheld device. Finally the accuracy of the analysis for each analyte was determined. Results and conclusion: Positive and negative control samples were each assayed in 40 different replicates. Among the 80 tests, only BZD yielded one false-negative result within the positive control samples. In this study, NARCOTEC drug detection system was able to detect seven illicit drugs (benzodiazepines, opiates, methamphetamine/MDMA, amphetamine, ∆9-THC and cocaine) with a 99% accuracy and within as little as 5 min. This indicates that NARCOTEC can be safely used for point-of-care drug tests including roadside tests, forensics screening, workplaces, immigration offices, air controllers, pilots and travel ports.

___

  • Referans 1 Ji Kwon N, Han E. A review of drug abuse in recently reported cases of driving under the influence of drugs (DUID) in Asia, USA, and Europe. Forensic Sci Int. 2019; 302: 109854.
  • Referans 2 Aps JK, Martens LC. Review: The physiology of saliva and transfer of drugs into saliva. Forensic Sci Int. 2005; 150(2-3): 119-31.
  • Referans 3 Blencowe T, Pehrsson A, Lillsunde P, Vimpari K, Houwing S, Smink B, Mathijssen R, Van der Linden T, Legrand SA, Pil K. Verstraete A. An analytical evaluation of eight on-site oral fluid drug screening devices using laboratory confirmation results from oral fluid. Forensic Sci Int. 2011; 208(1-3): 173-9.
  • Referans 4 Hancı İH, Kozaci LD. Determination of Drugs in Saliva in Combating Addictive Drugs: An Easy to Apply Immunochromographic Method. 2019; 3(4): 128-143.
  • Referans 5 Vindenes V, Lund HM, Andresen W, Gjerde H, Ikdahl SE, Christophersen AS, Øiestad EL. Detection of drugs of abuse in simultaneously collected oral fluid, urine and blood from Norwegian drug drivers. Forensic Sci Int. 2012; 219(1-3): 165-71. Referans 6 Toennes SW, Kauert GF, Steinmeyer S, Moeller MR. Driving under the influence of drugs -- evaluation of analytical data of drugs in oral fluid, serum and urine, and correlation with impairment symptoms. Forensic Sci Int. 2005; 152(2-3): 149-55.
  • Referans 7 Tang MHY, Ching CK, Poon S, Chan SSS, Ng WY, Lam M, Wong CK, Pao R, Lau A, Mak TWL. Evaluation of three rapid oral fluid test devices on the screening of multiple drugs of abuse including ketamine. Forensic Sci Int. 2018; 286: 113-120.
  • Referans 8 Šuláková A, Fojtíková L, Holubová B, Bártová K, Lapčík O, Kuchař M. Two immunoassays for the detection of 2C-B and related hallucinogenic phenethylamines. J Pharmacol Toxicol Methods. 2019; 95: 36-46.