Clinical Chemistry AACC Online Job Center
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Clinical Chemistry 39: 104-108, 1993;
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit an electronic Letter to
the Editor about this paper
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Dasgupta, A.
Right arrow Articles by Johansen, K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Dasgupta, A.
Right arrow Articles by Johansen, K.

Clinical Chemistry, Vol 39, 104-108, Copyright © 1993 by American Association for Clinical Chemistry

Analytical performance evaluation of EMIT II monoclonal amphetamine/methamphetamine assay: more specificity than EMIT d.a.u. monoclonal amphetamine/methamphetamine assay

A Dasgupta, S Saldana, G Kinnaman, M Smith and K Johansen
Clinical Laboratories, University of Chicago Hospitals, IL 60637.

We evaluated a new EMIT II monoclonal amphetamine/methamphetamine assay for screening human urine by comparing it with the EMIT d.a.u. monoclonal amphetamine/methamphetamine assay and a fluorescence polarization assay. The EMIT II assay has a cutoff of 1 mg/L d- methamphetamine. The EMIT II and EMIT d.a.u. assays were run on a BM/Hitachi 704 analyzer; for the fluorescence polarization assay we used a TDx analyzer. All EMIT II positive samples were also analyzed by the fluorescence polarization assay. We used gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) for confirmation of the presence of amphetamine or methamphetamine. Within-run CVs for the Level 1 (1 mg/L) and Level 2 (3 mg/L) calibrators for the EMIT II assay were 0.47% and 0.53%, respectively. Corresponding between-run CVs were 1.48% and 1.60%, respectively. Of the 1007 samples screened for amphetamines, 50 were positive by the EMIT d.a.u. assay; 21 samples (not a subset of the 50 samples) were positive by the EMIT II assay. However, 19 samples that tested positive by EMIT II also tested positive by the EMIT d.a.u. assay. Subsequent testing of the EMIT II positive samples by the fluorescence polarization assay detected in six positive samples. By means of chiral derivatization wer identified two specimens containing primarily l-isomers of amphetamine and methamphetamine. Sympathomimetic amines were identified in several of the samples not containing amphetamine or methamphetamine.


The following articles in journals at HighWire Press have cited this article:


Home page
 Clin. Chem.Home page
A. Woodworth, A. N. Saunders, J. W. Koenig, T. P. Moyer, J. Turk, and D. J. Dietzen
Differentiation of Amphetamine/Methamphetamine and Other Cross-Immunoreactive Sympathomimetic Amines in Urine Samples by Serial Dilution Testing
Clin. Chem., April 1, 2006; 52(4): 743 - 746.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Annals of Clinical & Laboratory ScienceHome page
G. Lum
Utilization and Cost Effectiveness of Standardized Testing for Screening and Confirmation of Drugs of Abuse in Urine
Ann. Clin. Lab. Sci., October 1, 2002; 32(4): 387 - 392.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1993 by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry.