November 20061
TRB 2012 DRUID session
Drug Driving Enforcement
Marjan Hagenzieker and Sjoerd Houwing
www.swov.nl
November 20062
TRB 2012 DRUID session
Partners
KLPD (NL)
DTU (DK)
THL (FI)
SWOV (NL)
UGent (BE)
TØI (NO)
November 20063
TRB 2012 DRUID session
Introduction
Drugs and driving is a serious road safety problem.
Before 2006 only a few EU member states had specific legislation for drugs and driving.
Urine screening devices were used to detect the presence of a specific drug.
Now oral fluid screening devices are the standard. They were evaluated in the ROSITA 2 project (2003-2005), but have they improved since then?
November 20064
TRB 2012 DRUID session
Main objectives
To get more insight in the usability of oral fluid screening devices
To get more insight in the reliability of oral fluid screening devices
To get more insight in the cost effectiveness of drug driving enforcement
November 20065
TRB 2012 DRUID session
Practical evaluation• Evaluation of 13 oral fluid screening devices from an
operational police perspective by 10 different police teams
in 6 European countries.
• All devices were tested by each of the 10 police teams.
• Devices were evaluated on 6 items:
• Succesful test performance
• Duration sample collection
• Duration sample analysis
• Hygienic aspects
• Impression reliability
• Simplicity of the test
November 20066
TRB 2012 DRUID session
Practical evaluation
8 devices have been qualified as promising:
Mavand RapidSTAT Securetec Drugwipe 5+
Branan Oratect XP Varian Oralab 6
Innovacon OrALert Cozart DDS
Dräger Drug Test 5000 Biosensor BIOSENS*
* During specific enforcement activities where a great number of persons should be tested in a limited period of time.
November 20067
TRB 2012 DRUID session
Promising Oral fluid screening devices
November 20068
TRB 2012 DRUID session
Analytical evaluation
• Study population consisted of randomly selected drivers from the DRUID roadside survey, suspected drivers, patients of rehabilitation clinics and treatment centres, and customers of coffeeshops.
• Devices were evaluated on: sensitivity, specificity, accuracy
FNTP
TPySensitivit
FPTN
TNySpecificit
FNFPTNTP
TNTPAccuracy
November 20069
TRB 2012 DRUID session
Analytical evaluation
Substance Sensitivity Specificity Accuracy
Cannabis 11-59% 90-100% 84-98%
Amphetamines 0-87% 90-100% 84-98%
Cocaine 13-50% 99-100% 86-100%
Opiates 69-90% 81-100% 75-99%
Benzodiazepines 48-67% 94-100% 77-100%
Desired target value: 80% for sensitivity and specificity for all substances
Not met by any of the devices!
November 200610
TRB 2012 DRUID session
Analytical evaluation
In practice the police would rather be interested in the overall sensitivity:
If a driver is positive for a specific drug or combination of drugs, any positive screening result is regarded as a true positive result.
November 200611
TRB 2012 DRUID session
Task 3.2
Overall sensitivity vs. overall specificity
Only DrugTest 5000, RapidSTAT, and Drugwipe 5+ are above the 80% for sensitivity and specificity
November 200612
TRB 2012 DRUID session
Evaluation preselection test
Evaluation checklist of Clinical Signs of Impairment (CSI)
• Very low correlation between signs and symptoms and actual presence of drugs. Mainly in high concentrations or very recent use.
• Pupil reaction test was best predicting parameter, esp. for AMP and THC.
• Sensitivity of the checklist was 32%. For signs and symptoms only even lower: 13%.
• More experience, better training, and selection of time and locations with high incidence may improve the results of the CSI.
November 200613
TRB 2012 DRUID session
• Societal cost-benefit analysis (CBA)
Costs of increased enforcement
Benefits of reduced casualties (valuation of prevented fatalities/injuries/damage) due to increased enforcement
Cost-Benefit Analysis
November 200614
TRB 2012 DRUID session
An increase of drug driving enforcement should not result in a decrease of drink driving enforcement
Main conclusions CBA #1
November 200615
TRB 2012 DRUID session
Oral fluid screening devices that perform above average have a higher Benefit-Cost ratio than devices that perform below average
Main conclusions CBA #2
Figure: BC ratios for three quality groups of devices
November 200616
TRB 2012 DRUID session
Drug driving enforcement is potential beneficial, particularly for countries that currently have a low enforcement level
Main conclusions CBA #3
Netherlands Belgium FinlandBaseline number of drug tests per 100.000 inhabitants
6 36 145
Net benefits 50% increase 5,407,268 11,844,255 438,494
BC ratio 50% increase 19.6 8.04 1.27
Net benefits tripling 13,220,740 27,232,590 -1,335,197
BC ratio tripling 13.74 5.09 0.79
Net benefits 10-fold increase 18,297,599 24,429,424 -21,124,469
BC ratio 10-fold increase 5.04 1.82 0.28
November 200617
TRB 2012 DRUID session
Summary
Eight of the thirteen evaluated devices were evaluated as promising from an operational police perspective.
None of the promising oral fluid screening devices was very sensitive for all substances. But the usability of a device depends on the prevalence of the target population. Drug-driving enforcement should not go at cost of alcohol enforcement.
November 200618
TRB 2012 DRUID session
Answer to the question
Did oral fluid screening devices improve since the ROSITA II study?
• From an operational police perspective they did.
• But from an analytical point of view there was hardly any improvement of performance
November 200619
TRB 2012 DRUID session
More information
www.druid-project.eu
D3.1.1 Evaluation of oral fluid Screening devices by TISPOL to Harmonise European police Requirements (ESTHER)
D3.2.1 Protocol of “workshop on drug driving detection by means of oral fluid screening
D3.2.2 Analytical evaluation of oral fluid screening deivces and preceding selection procedures
D3.3.1 Cost-benefit analysis of drug driving enforcement by the police
November 200620
TRB 2012 DRUID session
Thank you for your attention!