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


     

Clinical Chemistry 50: 717-722, 2004. First published February 5, 2004; 10.1373/clinchem.2003.028878
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
clinchem.2003.028878v1
50/4/717    most recent
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
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 Web of Science (9)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Luzzi, V. I.
Right arrow Articles by Dietzen, D. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Luzzi, V. I.
Right arrow Articles by Dietzen, D. J.
Related Collections
Right arrow Pediatric Clinical Chemistry
Right arrow Evidence Based Laboratory Medicine and Test Utilization
Right arrow Drug Monitoring and Toxicology
Right arrow Automation and Analytical Techniques
(Clinical Chemistry. 2004;50:717-722.)
© 2004 American Association for Clinical Chemistry, Inc.

Drug Monitoring and Toxicology

Analytic Performance of Immunoassays for Drugs of Abuse Below Established Cutoff Values

Veronica I. Luzzi2, Al N. Saunders4, John W. Koenig4, John Turk2,3, Stanley F. Lo5, Uttam C. Garg6 and Dennis J. Dietzen1,2,a

Departments of1 Pediatrics, 2 Pathology and Immunology, and 3 Internal Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO.
4 Drug Analysis Laboratory, Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis, MO.
5 Department of Pathology, Medical College of Wisconsin and Children’s Hospital of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI.
6 Children’s Mercy Hospital, Kansas City, MO.

aAddress correspondence to this author at: Department of Pediatrics, Box 8116, St. Louis Children’s Hospital, Room 2N68, One Children’s Place, St. Louis, MO 63110. Fax 314-454-2274; e-mail Dietzen_D{at}kids.wustl.edu.

Background: The analytic performance and accuracy of drug detection below Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) cutoffs is not well known. In some patient populations, clinically significant concentrations of abused drugs in urine may not be detected when current SAMHSA cutoffs are used. Our objectives were to define the precision profiles of three immunoassay systems for drugs of abuse and to evaluate the accuracy of testing at concentrations at which the CV was <20%.

Methods: Drug-free urine was supplemented with analytes to assess the precision in three commercial drugs-of-abuse immunoassay systems below the SAMHSA-dictated cutoffs for amphetamines, opiates, benzoylecgonine, phencyclidine, and cannabinoids. Consecutive urine samples with signals associated with a CV <20% by Emit® immunoassay and below SAMHSA cutoffs were then subjected to confirmatory analysis.

Results: The CV of all immunoassay systems tested remained <20% to drug concentrations well below SAMHSA cutoffs. The accuracy of urine drug-screening results between the SAMHSA-specified cutoffs and the precision-based cutoffs was less than accuracy for specimens above the SAMHSA cutoffs, but the use of the precision-based cutoff produced a 15.6% increase in the number of screen-positive specimens and a 7.8% increase in the detection of specimens that yielded positive results on confirmatory testing.

Conclusion: The precision of three commercial immunoassay systems for drugs-of-abuse screening is adequate to detect drugs below SAMHSA cutoffs. Knowledge of the positive predictive values of screening immunoassays at lower cutoff concentrations could enable efficient use of confirmatory testing resources and improved detection of illicit drug use.




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


Home page
 ANN INTERN MEDHome page
L. E. Sullivan and D. A. Fiellin
Narrative Review: Buprenorphine for Opioid-Dependent Patients in Office Practice
Ann Intern Med, May 6, 2008; 148(9): 662 - 670.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Mayo Clin Proc.Home page
K. E. Moeller, K. C. Lee, and J. C. Kissack
Urine Drug Screening: Practical Guide for Clinicians
Mayo Clin. Proc., January 1, 2008; 83(1): 66 - 76.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 International Journal of ToxicologyHome page
M. Stefanidou, C. Maravelias, A. Dona, S. Athanaselis, and H. Spiliopoulou
Toxicological Investigation of Drug-Related Cases in Greece: Interpretation of Analytical Findings
International Journal of Toxicology, May 1, 2007; 26(3): 231 - 236.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Annals of Clinical & Laboratory ScienceHome page
G. M. Reisfield, E. Salazar, and R. L. Bertholf
Rational Use and Interpretation of Urine Drug Testing in Chronic Opioid Therapy
Ann. Clin. Lab. Sci., January 1, 2007; 37(4): 301 - 314.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

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 HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2004 by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry.