Workplace drug testing, different matrices different objectives

Drug testing is used by employers to detect drug use by employees or job candidates. It can identify recent use of alcohol, prescription drugs, and illicit drugs as a screening tool for potential health and safety and performance issues. Urine is the most commonly used sample for illicit drugs. It detects the use of a drug within the last few days and as such is evidence of recent use; but a positive test does not necessarily mean that the individual was impaired at the time of the test. Abstention from use for three days will often produce a negative test result. Analysis of hair provides a much longer window of detection, typically 1 to 3 months. Hence the likelihood of a falsely negative test using hair is very much less than with a urine test. Conversely, a negative hair test is a substantially stronger indicator of a non-drug user than a negative urine test. Oral fluid (saliva) is also easy to collect. Drugs remain in oral fluid for a similar time as in blood. The method is a good way of detecting current use and is more likely to reflect current impairment. It offers promise as a test in post-accident, for cause, and on-duty situations. Studies have shown that within the same industrial settings, hair testing can detect twice as many drug users as urine testing. Copyright (C) 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Concurrent crack and powder cocaine users from Sao Paulo: Do they represent a different group?

Abstract Background Cocaine abuse is a serious and socially damaging illegal drug problem. Different routes of administration are associated with a specific progression of use, different degrees of abuse liability, propensity for dependence and treatment response. There have been relatively few studies comparing different cocaine users groups and no studies into the characterization of the group of individuals reporting concurrent use of powder cocaine and crack cocaine. Methods Six hundred and ninety-nine cocaine users were assessed during the period August 1997 to October 1998 in one outpatient and six inpatient clinics located in the São Paulo, Brazil. Patients were interviewed using a structured questionnaire schedule in Portuguese, designed specifically for the Brazilian population. The statistical analyses were performed using either ANOVA or a chi-squared test and focusing on their preferred form of use/route of administration and other variables. Results For 83% of the variables tested in this study, the Dual Users subgroup (using both powder and crack cocaine) demonstrated statistical differences from the single drug user subgroups. Those differences include the initiation of cocaine, the abuse of other illicit drugs, and rates of criminal history. Conclusion These data suggest cocaine-dependent individuals who report use of both powder and crack cocaine are an at least partially, distinct subgroup. However, further studies will be necessary to confirm this and to determine if they also show a different treatment response.