"We report recent trends for drivers testing positive for illicit drugs in oral fluid in France. Cannabis was the most prevalent drug of abuse identified, suggesting that a general prevention program might be useful. Our results also highlight the need for LC-MS/MS confirmation when screening oral fluid for drugs of abuse."

"OC are more likely to screen positive than CC for a similar blood concentration."

"This study will clarify the risks involved in driving following CBD use and assist in ensuring the safe use of CBD by drivers."

New psychoactive substances in oral fluid of drivers around a music festival in south-west France in 2017.

The study highlights a significant disparity in the performance of roadside THC screening devices. While the Dräger DrugTest® and WipeAlyser Reader® proved highly reliable with sensitivities over 91%, other tested devices like AquilaScan® and Druglizer® showed unacceptable accuracy. Consequently, the effectiveness of cannabis traffic enforcement depends entirely on selecting high-performance technology to ensure road safety and reliable detection.

This study evaluated two oral fluid (OF) and two urine on-site tests for DUID detection in Germany. While individual performance varied, no device met all ROSITA-1 criteria. The urine tests (DrugScreen® 5TK/7TR) showed high sensitivity but poor specificity and cannot prove recent drug influence—a requirement for StVG s. 24a (2). The DrugWipe® 6S performed reliably for amphetamines and cocaine, though THC sensitivity remains a concern. Due to insufficient positive predictive values (PPVs) across all devices, further research should focus on the correlation between on-site matrices and serum levels. Ultimately, while these tests are useful screening tools, they cannot replace the assessment of impairment by trained police officers.

"Here we have compared, for the first time, cannabinoid concentrations in oral fluid following controlled administration of THC‐dominant, THC/CBD equivalent, and placebo cannabis. There were few differences in confirmed oral fluid THC concentrations between the two active cannabis conditions, suggesting that CBD has little effect on oral fluid THC concentrations when the two compounds are vaporized in a 1:1 ratio. It may not be possible to generalize these results to other routes of administration and to cannabis or cannabinoid products containing higher CBD to THC ratios. We also evaluated the performance of the DW5s and DT5000 POCT devices that are widely used to detect DUIC. Both devices performed acceptably when oral fluid THC concentrations were well above or below the screening cut‐off, but neither device exhibited >80% sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy. A considerable number of false positive and false negative results were observed. While these devices are useful tools for detecting recent cannabis use, confirmatory testing is absolutely necessary and of the utmost importance. This is especially important in contexts (eg, DUIC) where positive tests results may lead to criminal convictions."

"This study suggests that orally administered CBD is unlikely to elicit false‐positive (or true‐positive) tests for THC on the DW‐5S or DT5000 POC oral fluid testing devices. The likelihood of an individual who is using a CBD (only) oral formulation being falsely accused of DUIC therefore appears low. However, further research is required to determine whether inhaled CBD and CBD formulations containing small amounts of THC have the potential to elicit positive tests."

"The prevalence of drivers testing positive for illicit drugs resulted to be higher compared to the results obtained in the DRUID project and to other surveys previously performed in Italy. These data demonstrate the need for control services to improve road safety in regards to drug driving."

"We evaluated the performance of two commonly used POCT devices, DW5S and DT5000, against LC–MS/MS‐quantified OF THC concentrations following controlled oral administration of 10 mg THC (in combination with 200 mg CBD) oil and placebo. The DT5000 device performed somewhat better than the DW5S device; however, there was overall high risk for FP and FN results at short intervals after oral administration (0.5 h post‐treatment) in the face of high variability in OF THC concentrations across participants. The next day (10 and 18 h post‐treatment), both devices accurately produced negative results reflecting the fact that all samples had THC concentrations lower than the screening cut‐offs on the POCT devices at these time points. Overall, these findings indicate a low probability of obtaining a positive THC result the next day after evening consumption of an oral cannabis oil containing 10 mg THC (in combination with 200 mg CBD) in individuals who infrequently use cannabis. However, these results cannot necessarily be generalised to those who regularly use THC or cannabis, including medicinal cannabis patients. Regular users may accumulate residual THC in OF, leading to higher baseline readings and an increased risk of obtaining a positive THC result with commonly used POCT devices."