Clinical Chemistry
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Clinical Chemistry 55: 1910-1931, 2009. First published September 10, 2009; 10.1373/clinchem.2008.108670
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
clinchem.2008.108670v1
55/11/1910    most recent
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bosker, W. M.
Right arrow Articles by Huestis, M. A.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bosker, W. M.
Right arrow Articles by Huestis, M. A.
(Clinical Chemistry. 2009;55:1910-1931.)
© 2009 American Association for Clinical Chemistry, Inc.

Reviews

Oral Fluid Testing for Drugs of Abuse

Wendy M. Bosker1,2 and Marilyn A. Huestis2,a

1 Maastricht University, Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, Neuropsychology & Psychopharmacology, Experimental Psychopharmacology Unit, Maastricht, The Netherlands; 2 Chemistry and Drug Metabolism, National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH, Baltimore, MD.

aAddress correspondence to this author at: 251 Bayview Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21224. Fax +443-740-2823; e-mail mhuestis{at}intra.nida.nih.gov.

Background: Oral fluid (OF) is an exciting alternative matrix for monitoring drugs of abuse in workplace, clinical toxicology, criminal justice, and driving under the influence of drugs (DUID) programs. During the last 5 years, scientific and technological advances in OF collection, point-of-collection testing devices, and screening and confirmation methods were achieved. Guidelines were proposed for workplace OF testing by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, DUID testing by the European Union’s Driving under the Influence of Drugs, Alcohol and Medicines (DRUID) program, and standardization of DUID research. Although OF testing is now commonplace in many monitoring programs, the greatest current limitation is the scarcity of controlled drug administration studies available to guide interpretation.

Content: This review outlines OF testing advantages and limitations, and the progress in OF that has occurred during the last 5 years in collection, screening, confirmation, and interpretation of cannabinoids, opioids, amphetamines, cocaine, and benzodiazepines. We examine controlled drug administration studies, immunoassay and chromatographic methods, collection devices, point-of-collection testing device performance, and recent applications of OF testing.

Summary: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration approval of OF testing was delayed because questions about drug OF disposition were not yet resolved, and collection device performance and testing assays required improvement. Here, we document the many advances achieved in the use of OF. Additional research is needed to identify new biomarkers, determine drug detection windows, characterize OF adulteration techniques, and evaluate analyte stability. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that OF offers multiple advantages as an alternative matrix for drug monitoring and has an important role in DUID, treatment, workplace, and criminal justice programs.






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2009 by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry.