The Druid Program (Driving under the Influence of Drugs)

Transcription

1 The Druid Program (Driving under the Influence of Drugs) 1

2 ESTHER DRUID Project - Workpackage -Enforcement 1. Practical evaluation of screening devices Comparison of practical effects of screening devices for the police Slide 3 and 4 2. Scientific evaluation of screening devices Accuracy and reliability of the test systems Slide Cost-benefit analysis (not finished) Total costs and total benefits of drug screening programs. 2

3 ESTHER study confirms DrugWipe s excellent operability Safe and hygienic testing with DW 5+? 97 % of police stated yes Police rely on the indicated result of DW 5+? 82 % of police rely on the obtained result Simple and fast road side testing? 98 % of police qualify DrugWipe 5+ as simple and very easy to use DrugWipe could be used easily at the road side? 98,5 % concluded that DrugWipe is a real road side test Druid Project Deliverable , from KLDP/ TISPOL 3

4 ESTHER study confirms DrugWipe is the most promising solution for police forces Average collecting time Average analysing time Testing in a hygienic way Failure rate Test simple to perform Securetec DrugWipe Branan Oratect XP Cozart DDS Innovacon OrALert Varian OraLab 6 Screening devices to be used everywhere without specific requirements 1 min. 15 sec. 4 min. 50 sec. 97 % 2 % 98 % 4 min. 5 min. 45 sec. 89 % 12 % 82 % 2 min. 6 min. 85 % 1 % 87 % 3 min. 7 min. 72 % 10 % 66 % 3 min. 50 sec. 7 min. 20 sec. 87 % 20 % 85 % Dräger Drug Test 5000 Mavand RapidStat Biosensor BIOSENS Screening devices only to be used in specific police vehicles 3 min. 11 min. 100 % 3 % 82 % 2 min. 15 sec. 9 min. 70 % 15 % 66 % Screening devices only to be used at mass events 50 sec. 2 min. 15 sec. 95 % 0 % 75 % Druid Project Deliverable , from KLDP/ TISPOL 4

5 Scientific evaluation in the framework of Druid Specificity and Sensitivity Solutions based on electronic readers Druid Project Deliverable from National Institute for Health and Welfare, Finland. 5

6 DrugWipe has the highest ratio of sensitivity and specificity of all devices in the comparison. The Druid Team stated at the outset that one significant problem was that devices with high sensitivity often have low specificity and vice versa. This trade-off between specificity and sensitivity can even be observed with the use of only one kind of device (see slide 10 for RapidSTAT) This ratio of sensitivity and specificity is known as accuracy and the previous page of Druid figure 44 shows that DrugWipe is the clear winner of all the devices in the comparison. The data collected for figure 44 was derived from all saliva samples and across all drugs. In the overall evaluation DrugWipe, whilst not perfect, was the leading device. The Druid study has compared solutions that are bulky station based electronic readers against simple visually read road side screeners. The results show big expensive solutions do not beat the class leading analytical performance of DrugWipe used at the road side. 6

7 Scientific evaluation: overall sensitivity DrugWipe 5+ is the leading product DrugWipe 5+ Druid Project Deliverable from National Institute for Health and Welfare, Finland. 7

8 Overall evaluation of Druid All in % DrugTest 5000 DDS Cozart RapidSTAT DrugWipe 5+ Sensitivity Upper limit Lower limit Specificity Upper limit Lower limit Accuracy Upper limit Lower limit Druid Project Deliverable from National Institute for Health and Welfare, Finland., page

9 Scientific evaluation: Cannabis sensitivity DrugWipe5+ wins in the real world Samples collected at a Dutch coffee shop Druid Project Deliverable from National Institute for Health and Welfare, Finland. 9

10 Cannabis performance comparison of three devices on both normal road side levels and at very high Dutch coffee shop levels where it is easy to be more accurate. DrugWipe did not participate for the trial in front of the coffee shop. RapidSTAT exhibiting bad specificity and sensitivity trade-off. See how results were improved for Dräger and RapidSTAT with easier to detect high level samples. Druid Project Deliverable from National Institute for Health and Welfare, Finland., page 83 and page

11 Comparability of the D9THC data Conclusion: 1. The data collected at the exit of the coffee shop should not be relevant for an evaluation of police road side devices because coffee shop concentrations of drugs in saliva are tremendously high, especially for THC, in comparison with the lower saliva sample concentrations at police controls (see next slide) 2. It is difficult to understand the reasons why Dutch police chose the exit of a coffee shop for testing devices for the police force. These easy obtained high levels are not conducive to development of the devices with better specificity and sensitivities for use at the road side. 3. The DrugWipe device shows a high accuracy and a high specificity. The latest 2010 DrugWipe has a significantly improved sensitivity of THC detection and now leads to a higher hit rate for THC consumers. (new confidential data is available on request) 11

12 The average concentration of D9THC is higher at the exit of the coffee shop Concentration of D9THC Coffee shop saliva time window police control urine blood Detection limit 0,5-1 h 6 h 12 h hours A high average concentration of D9THC in saliva (at the coffee shop) leads to a higher ratio of positive test results, so recording higher Sen/Spec/Acc stats, even for devices with a very poor sensitivity for D9THC. Securetec AG

13 Scientific evaluation: Amphetamine/Metamphetamine sensitivity DrugWipe 5+ shows high values for sensitivity (87%), at the same time a very good rating for specificity (95%) and accuracy (93 %) Druid Project Deliverable from National Institute for Health and Welfare, Finland., page

14 Visual Signs of Impairment evaluation: using standard checklist (CSI) Belgium Netherlands - Finland Druid Project Deliverable from National Institute for Health and Welfare, Finland., page

15 Clinical signs of impairment (CSI) checklist shows poor results for sensitivity CSI by police officer TP FP TN FN TOTAL SENSITIVITY 13 % 32% PREVALENCE 5,6% 5,6% Self reported use of drugs and CSI by police officer The work with the checklist does not offer a convincing methodology to distinguish a drugged driver from non impaired drivers. Easy access to fast and mobile screeners is essential to establish a drug enforcement policy. Druid Project Deliverable from National Institute for Health and Welfare, Finland., page 82f. 15

16 All data was independently gathered and assessed by Police and Universities in the EU and is freely available at: Workpackage 3 - deliverables 16