Comparison of zopiclone concentrations in oral fluid sampled with Intercept(®) oral specimen collection device and Statsure Saliva Sampler™ and concentrations in blood.

Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Division of Forensic Toxicology and Drug Abuse, P.O. Box 4404 Nydalen, NO-0403 Oslo, Norway.
Journal of analytical toxicology (Impact Factor: 2.63). 11/2010; 34(9):590-3.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT A clinical study of zopiclone was performed using doses of 5 and 10 mg. Samples of oral fluid were collected using the Statsure and Intercept devices, and blood samples were collected simultaneously. Concentrations of zopiclone in samples of oral fluid and blood were determined with liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry, and concentrations in undiluted oral fluid were calculated. The concentrations of zopiclone in oral fluid were generally higher when using the Intercept compared to the Statsure device; the median oral fluid/whole blood concentration ratios were 3.8 (range 1.5-15.9) and 1.9 (range 1.2-4.6), respectively (n = 21). The correlation between zopiclone concentrations in oral fluid collected with the two devices was fairly poor, r(2) = 0.35. The results indicate that the type of sampling device may significantly affect the analytical result for zopiclone in sampled oral fluid.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The relationship of drug concentrations between oral fluid and whole blood was evaluated by studying the linear correlation of concentrations and calculating the oral fluid to blood concentration ratios (OF/B) for different substances. Paired oral fluid and whole blood samples were collected from volunteers and persons suspected of drug use in four European countries. Oral fluid samples were collected with the Saliva∙Sampler™ device. All samples were analyzed for drugs of abuse and psychoactive medicines with validated gas and liquid chromatography-mass spectrometric methods. The median OF/B ratios were, for amphetamines 19-22, for opioids 1.8-11, for cocaine and metabolites 1.7-17, for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) 14, for benzodiazepines 0.035-0.33, and for other psychoactive medicines 0.24-3.7. Most of the these results were close to theoretical values based on the physicochemical properties of the drugs and to values presented earlier, but there was a lot of inter-individual variation in the OF/B ratios. For all substances, except for lorazepam (R(2) = 0.031) and THC (R(2) = 0.030), a correlation between the oral fluid and whole blood concentrations was observed. Due to large variation seen here, drug findings in oral fluid should not be used to estimate the corresponding concentrations in whole blood (or vice versa). However, detection of drugs in oral fluid is a sign of recent drug use and oral fluid can be used for qualitative detection of several drugs, e.g. in epidemiological prevalence studies. By optimizing the sampling and the analytical cut-offs, the potential of oral fluid as a confirmation matrix could be enhanced. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
    Drug Testing and Analysis 09/2013; · 2.82 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Norway introduced legislative limits for 20 non-alcohol drugs in 2012.•The number of expert witness statements has decreased with almost half.•The number of apprehended drugged drivers has increased with 20%.•Drug concentrations higher than the 0.12% limits were seen in 47% of the cases.
    Forensic Science International 11/2014; · 2.12 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This roadside study is the Danish part of the EU-project DRUID (Driving under the Influence of Drugs, Alcohol, and Medicines) and included three representative regions in Denmark. Oral fluid samples (n=3002) were collected randomly from drivers using a sampling scheme stratified by time, season, and road type. The oral fluid samples were screened for 29 illegal and legal psychoactive substances and metabolites as well as ethanol. Fourteen (0.5%) drivers were positive for ethanol (alone or in combination with drugs) at concentrations above 0.53g/l, which is the Danish legal limit. The percentage of drivers positive for medicinal drugs above the Danish legal concentration limit was 0.4%; while, 0.3% of the drivers tested positive for one or more illicit drug at concentrations exceeding the Danish legal limit. Tetrahydrocannabinol, cocaine, and amphetamine were the most frequent illicit drugs detected above the limit of quantitation (LOQ); while, codeine, tramadol, zopiclone, and benzodiazepines were the most frequent legal drugs. Middle aged men (median age 47.5 years) dominated the drunk driving group, while the drivers positive for illegal drugs consisted mainly of young men (median age 26 years). Middle aged women (median age 44.5 years) often tested positive for benzodiazepines at concentrations exceeding the legal limits. Interestingly, 0.6% of drivers tested positive for tramadol, at concentrations above the DRUID cut off; although, tramadol is not included in the Danish list of narcotic drugs. It can be concluded that driving under the influence of drugs is as serious a road safety problem as drunk driving.
    Forensic science international 05/2012; 221(1-3):33-8. · 2.10 Impact Factor