We get that the current paradigm of technician-based FTIR drug checking can be cumbersome, and folks are looking for cheaper/easier alternatives. But corporations are making aggressive marketing claims about handheld devices that are unsubstantiated. Therefore, it is encumbent on you to evaluate device performance before you can safely roll out your service to participants.

At the heart of the matter is that these devices were designed to put people in prison by detecting a [single] controlled substance. In general, they may not be able to identify all the substances that are found in today's street drugs. For example, on average fentanyl-containing samples we test via GCMS have 4.7 additional substances beyond fentanyl.

And the methods used in the commercial handheld devices are a black box. We owe it to our participants to provide the most accurate data possible. Lives depend upon it.

Independent Lab Verification

So now you've got one of these devices. Here's how we can help you evaluate the accuracy.

1. We publicly register that we are going to do this analysis on OSF.io. This is so that the community of practice can learn with you. It also keeps us all accountable.
2. We work with you to figure out what kinds of drugs to sample. In general we recommend at a minimum a mix of opioids and stimulants, but also psychedelics or synthetic cannabinoids if those are likely to show up in your catchment area.
3. Request kits, sign our terms and conditions, watch our 10-minute training video. Then we will send you 20 kits.
4. Analyze 20 samples, by one technician, using your handheld device, and put a couple of scoops of each sample into the vials in our kits. Keep track of the sample ID numbers, and report the results to us in a spreadsheet with our corresponding sample IDs. Mail us back the kits.
5. Once we get the samples, we will analyze them using GCMS (and FTIR if needed), and send you the results.
6. In addition, we will calculate accuracy statistics comparing your handheld results with our GCMS lab results. For this purpose, we consider our GCMS results to be the "gold standard." The stats we will calculate are: overall accuracy, sensitivity (true positive), specificity (true negative), positive predictive value, negative predictive value, likelihood ratio + and -, and ROC.
7. We will post the results of accuracy statistics to OSF.io. You are welcome to share these results.

How much does this cost?

Our pricing is here. Twenty kits are $400 for harm reduction orgs, and $1,200 for health departments. This includes qualitative GCMS analysis and shipping.

How long is the turnaround?

Depending on the specific contents of your samples, we expect this process to take about a month.

Helpful Reading

These 3 resources will help you in understanding the different technologies and machines.

Considerations for New Drug Checking Technologies from the Remedy Alliance Drug Checking team.

Considerations for Purchasing Drug Checking Technologies: Perspectives from Toronto’s Drug Checking Service - PMC

With the unregulated drug supply—particularly the unregulated opioid supply—becoming increasingly more toxic, more contaminated, and less predictable, drug checking has emerged as an essential public health service: informing individuals who use…

NCBI home page*Correspondence: drugcheckingcdpe.org

Point-of-care community drug checking technologies: an insider look at the scientific principles and practical considerations - Harm Reduction Journal

Drug checking is increasingly being explored outside of festivals and events to be an ongoing service within communities, frequently integrated within responses to illicit drug overdose. The choice of instrumentation is a common question, and the demands on these chemical analytical instruments can be challenging as illicit substances may be more complex and include highly potent ingredients at trace levels. The answer remains nuanced as the instruments themselves are not directly comparable nor are the local demands on the service, meaning implementation factors heavily influence the assessment and effectiveness of instruments. In this perspective, we provide a technical but accessible introduction to the background of a few common drug checking methods aimed at current and potential drug checking service providers. We discuss the following tools that have been used as part of the Vancouver Island Drug Checking Project in Victoria, Canada: immunoassay test strips, attenuated total reflection IR-absorption spectroscopy, Raman spectroscopy from powder samples, surface-enhanced Raman scattering in a solution of colloidal gold nanoparticles, and gas chromatography–mass spectrometry. Using four different drug mixtures received and tested at the service, we illustrate the strengths, limitations, and capabilities of such instruments, and expose the scientific theory to give further insight into their analytical results. Each case study provides a walk-through-style analysis for a practical comparison between data from several different instruments acquired on the same sample. Ideally, a single instrument would be able to achieve all of the objectives of drug checking. However, there is no clear instrument that ticks every box; low cost, portable, rapid, easy-to-use and provides highly sensitive identification and accurate quantification. Multi-instrument approaches to drug checking may be required to effectively respond to increasingly complex and highly potent substances demanding trace level detection and the potential for quantification.

BioMed CentralLea Gozdzialski