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...
Autor principal: | |
---|---|
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 |