Cargando…

Comparison of Urine and Oral Fluid for Workplace Drug Testing

AIMS: To determine the relative detection rates of urine versus oral fluid testing in a safety sensitive industry and the correlation with diagnosed substance use disorders and possible impairment at work. METHODS: The trial involved 1,500 paired urine and oral fluid tests performed in accordance wi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Casolin, Armand
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4986628/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27344042
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jat/bkw055
_version_ 1782448217909100544
author Casolin, Armand
author_facet Casolin, Armand
author_sort Casolin, Armand
collection PubMed
description AIMS: To determine the relative detection rates of urine versus oral fluid testing in a safety sensitive industry and the correlation with diagnosed substance use disorders and possible impairment at work. METHODS: The trial involved 1,500 paired urine and oral fluid tests performed in accordance with Australian Standard/New Zealand Standard (AS/NZS) 4308:2008 and AS 4760:2006. Workers who returned a positive test were screened for substance use disorders, as defined by DSM-5, and for possible impairment at work following that particular episode of substance use. RESULTS: Substances were detected in 3.7% (n = 56) of urine samples and 0.5% (n = 8) of oral fluid samples (p < 0.0001). One worker (0.07%) had a substance detected on oral fluid alone versus 49 workers (3.3%) who had substances detected on urine alone. Twelve workers returned a positive result, defined as being consistent with the use of an illicit drug or a controlled substance without a clinical indication and prescription. Nine workers tested positive on urine alone, one on oral fluid alone and two on both (p = 0.0114). Of note, 6/11 workers who tested positive on urine had possible impairment at work and 2/11 had a substance use disorder versus 2/3 and 0/3, respectively, who tested positive on oral fluid. CONCLUSIONS: Urine drug testing performed in accordance with AS/NZS 4308:2008 is more likely to detect overall substance use and illicit drug use than oral fluid testing conducted in accordance with AS 4760:2006. Urine testing performed in accordance with AS/NZS 4308:2008 may also be more likely to detect workers with possible impairment at work and substance use disorders than oral fluid testing performed in accordance with AS 4760:2006.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4986628
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-49866282016-08-22 Comparison of Urine and Oral Fluid for Workplace Drug Testing Casolin, Armand J Anal Toxicol Article AIMS: To determine the relative detection rates of urine versus oral fluid testing in a safety sensitive industry and the correlation with diagnosed substance use disorders and possible impairment at work. METHODS: The trial involved 1,500 paired urine and oral fluid tests performed in accordance with Australian Standard/New Zealand Standard (AS/NZS) 4308:2008 and AS 4760:2006. Workers who returned a positive test were screened for substance use disorders, as defined by DSM-5, and for possible impairment at work following that particular episode of substance use. RESULTS: Substances were detected in 3.7% (n = 56) of urine samples and 0.5% (n = 8) of oral fluid samples (p < 0.0001). One worker (0.07%) had a substance detected on oral fluid alone versus 49 workers (3.3%) who had substances detected on urine alone. Twelve workers returned a positive result, defined as being consistent with the use of an illicit drug or a controlled substance without a clinical indication and prescription. Nine workers tested positive on urine alone, one on oral fluid alone and two on both (p = 0.0114). Of note, 6/11 workers who tested positive on urine had possible impairment at work and 2/11 had a substance use disorder versus 2/3 and 0/3, respectively, who tested positive on oral fluid. CONCLUSIONS: Urine drug testing performed in accordance with AS/NZS 4308:2008 is more likely to detect overall substance use and illicit drug use than oral fluid testing conducted in accordance with AS 4760:2006. Urine testing performed in accordance with AS/NZS 4308:2008 may also be more likely to detect workers with possible impairment at work and substance use disorders than oral fluid testing performed in accordance with AS 4760:2006. Oxford University Press 2016-09 2016-08-16 /pmc/articles/PMC4986628/ /pubmed/27344042 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jat/bkw055 Text en © The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com
spellingShingle Article
Casolin, Armand
Comparison of Urine and Oral Fluid for Workplace Drug Testing
title Comparison of Urine and Oral Fluid for Workplace Drug Testing
title_full Comparison of Urine and Oral Fluid for Workplace Drug Testing
title_fullStr Comparison of Urine and Oral Fluid for Workplace Drug Testing
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Urine and Oral Fluid for Workplace Drug Testing
title_short Comparison of Urine and Oral Fluid for Workplace Drug Testing
title_sort comparison of urine and oral fluid for workplace drug testing
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4986628/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27344042
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jat/bkw055
work_keys_str_mv AT casolinarmand comparisonofurineandoralfluidforworkplacedrugtesting