Evaluation of DrugWipe® 6S with the WipeAlyser® reader for drug screening of drivers

On-site drug screening of oral fluid samples has gained attention because of its convenience and rapid results. The aim of this investigation was to compare the results of preliminary screening for drugs in oral fluid samples collected from suspected drug-impaired drivers using DrugWipe 6S and WipeAlyser reader with the results obtained from blood samples. Additionally, we compared the DrugWipe test results with findings of drug traces detected within the used DrugWipe devices. Police officers selected a sample of 355 suspected drug-impaired drivers in 2023. They used DrugWipe 6S for preliminary drug screening of drivers. After the field drug testing of oral fluid, the apprehended drivers were brought to a physician for the collection of blood samples. The collected samples (DrugWipe devices and blood samples) were submitted to the Norwegian National Forensic Toxicology Laboratory for analysis. The proportion of positive DrugWipe results that were unconfirmed when analysing blood samples was 82% for opiates, 75% for cocaine, and ∼19%-20% for amphetamines, cannabis, and benzodiazepines. The proportion of negative DrugWipe results that were found positive in blood samples was for cannabis and benzodiazepines ∼13%-14%, and for other drugs <3%. Detected drug traces in the used DrugWipe devices corresponded well with DrugWipe readouts for cannabis, amphetamines, and cocaine. The lack of correspondence between DrugWipe test results for cocaine and findings in blood may be due to the fact that the concentration of cocaine in saliva is often much higher than in blood, and the DrugWipe test is very sensitive. In addition, degradation and elimination of cocaine before the blood sample is taken may contribute to cocaine concentrations below the cut-off concentration in blood. For opiates and benzodiazepines, traces of drugs were found in relatively few DrugWipe devices. Many unconfirmed positives for opiates were most likely due to cross-reaction with substances in 'snus' (snuff tobacco).

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Analytical Toxicology
Published
2025-04-11
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/jat/bkaf028
Primary Topic
Forensic Toxicology and Drug Analysis
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Evaluation of DrugWipe® 6S with the WipeAlyser® reader for drug screening of drivers

Hallvard Gjerde, Lihn Bache‐Andreassen, Grethe Brennhovd Clausen, Elisabeth Leere Øiestad et al.
Journal of Analytical Toxicology
Forensic Toxicology and Drug Analysis
article

Evaluation of DrugWipe® 6S with the WipeAlyser® reader for drug screening of drivers

Hallvard Gjerde, Lihn Bache‐Andreassen, Grethe Brennhovd Clausen, Elisabeth Leere Øiestad, Ragnhild Elén Gjulem Jamt
article en

Abstract

On-site drug screening of oral fluid samples has gained attention because of its convenience and rapid results. The aim of this investigation was to compare the results of preliminary screening for drugs in oral fluid samples collected from suspected drug-impaired drivers using DrugWipe 6S and WipeAlyser reader with the results obtained from blood samples. Additionally, we compared the DrugWipe test results with findings of drug traces detected within the used DrugWipe devices. Police officers selected a sample of 355 suspected drug-impaired drivers in 2023. They used DrugWipe 6S for preliminary drug screening of drivers. After the field drug testing of oral fluid, the apprehended drivers were brought to a physician for the collection of blood samples. The collected samples (DrugWipe devices and blood samples) were submitted to the Norwegian National Forensic Toxicology Laboratory for analysis. The proportion of positive DrugWipe results that were unconfirmed when analysing blood samples was 82% for opiates, 75% for cocaine, and ∼19%-20% for amphetamines, cannabis, and benzodiazepines. The proportion of negative DrugWipe results that were found positive in blood samples was for cannabis and benzodiazepines ∼13%-14%, and for other drugs <3%. Detected drug traces in the used DrugWipe devices corresponded well with DrugWipe readouts for cannabis, amphetamines, and cocaine. The lack of correspondence between DrugWipe test results for cocaine and findings in blood may be due to the fact that the concentration of cocaine in saliva is often much higher than in blood, and the DrugWipe test is very sensitive. In addition, degradation and elimination of cocaine before the blood sample is taken may contribute to cocaine concentrations below the cut-off concentration in blood. For opiates and benzodiazepines, traces of drugs were found in relatively few DrugWipe devices. Many unconfirmed positives for opiates were most likely due to cross-reaction with substances in 'snus' (snuff tobacco).

Journal of Analytical ToxicologyVol. 49(7)
Oslo University Hospital (NO), University of Oslo (NO)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 90%
Forensic Toxicology and Drug Analysis
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.