B-262 Validation of a point-of-care lateral flow immunoassay for urine drug testing prior to application in an outpatient rapid access addiction medicine clinic

IF 7.1 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY
M Bohn, S Delaney, B Jung, W Lamb, F Leung
{"title":"B-262 Validation of a point-of-care lateral flow immunoassay for urine drug testing prior to application in an outpatient rapid access addiction medicine clinic","authors":"M Bohn, S Delaney, B Jung, W Lamb, F Leung","doi":"10.1093/clinchem/hvae106.619","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Point-of-care (POC) urine drug testing is a useful adjunct to self-reporting in rapid access addiction medicine settings to immediately guide patient management. However, available POC immunoassays have limitations including cross-reactivity with unrelated compounds or low sensitivity that may cause false results. Here, we assessed the performance of a multi-drug test panel by comparing against gold-standard liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) testing. Methods 102 residual urine specimens were assayed using a competitive lateral flow immunoassay (LFA) for 10 drugs: 2-ethylene-1,5-dimethyl-3,3-diphenylpyrrolidine (EDDP, methadone metabolite), buprenorphine, morphine, hydromorphone, oxycodone, fentanyl, cocaine, methamphetamine, amphetamine, and benzodiazepines (BTNX Rapid ResponseTM Multi-Drug Panel). Results were compared to those obtained by LC-MS/MS (n=67, 66%) or kinetic interaction of microparticles in solution automated immunoassay (KIMS) (Roche Diagnostics, n=35, 33%). Broad spectrum LC-MS/MS results were reviewed in entirety for discordant cases, particularly in false positives to identify the presence of any known cross-reacting compounds. Results Of 10 drugs evaluated, four demonstrated ≥95% agreement with LC-MS/MS or KIMS immunoassay (EDDP, buprenorphine, oxycodone, methamphetamine). Fentanyl demonstrated the highest false negative rate of 44% (LFA cut-off: 10 ng/mL) followed by amphetamines (22%, cut-off: 1000 ng/mL). Morphine and hydromorphone demonstrated false positive rates of 14% and 18%, respectively, with most cases likely due to cross-reacting opiate or opioid metabolites. Benzodiazepines (target: Oxazepam) demonstrated false positive and negative rates of 13% and 24%, respectively. Conclusions To our knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate the performance of the BTNX multi-drug test panel against definitive testing in urine samples. While good concordance was observed for most drugs, high rates of discordant results for fentanyl and others emphasize the need for confirmatory testing by methods with higher sensitivity and specificity. Careful consideration prior to implementation would be essential, including physician education, interpretative comments, and training resources.","PeriodicalId":10690,"journal":{"name":"Clinical chemistry","volume":"121 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical chemistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/clinchem/hvae106.619","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background Point-of-care (POC) urine drug testing is a useful adjunct to self-reporting in rapid access addiction medicine settings to immediately guide patient management. However, available POC immunoassays have limitations including cross-reactivity with unrelated compounds or low sensitivity that may cause false results. Here, we assessed the performance of a multi-drug test panel by comparing against gold-standard liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) testing. Methods 102 residual urine specimens were assayed using a competitive lateral flow immunoassay (LFA) for 10 drugs: 2-ethylene-1,5-dimethyl-3,3-diphenylpyrrolidine (EDDP, methadone metabolite), buprenorphine, morphine, hydromorphone, oxycodone, fentanyl, cocaine, methamphetamine, amphetamine, and benzodiazepines (BTNX Rapid ResponseTM Multi-Drug Panel). Results were compared to those obtained by LC-MS/MS (n=67, 66%) or kinetic interaction of microparticles in solution automated immunoassay (KIMS) (Roche Diagnostics, n=35, 33%). Broad spectrum LC-MS/MS results were reviewed in entirety for discordant cases, particularly in false positives to identify the presence of any known cross-reacting compounds. Results Of 10 drugs evaluated, four demonstrated ≥95% agreement with LC-MS/MS or KIMS immunoassay (EDDP, buprenorphine, oxycodone, methamphetamine). Fentanyl demonstrated the highest false negative rate of 44% (LFA cut-off: 10 ng/mL) followed by amphetamines (22%, cut-off: 1000 ng/mL). Morphine and hydromorphone demonstrated false positive rates of 14% and 18%, respectively, with most cases likely due to cross-reacting opiate or opioid metabolites. Benzodiazepines (target: Oxazepam) demonstrated false positive and negative rates of 13% and 24%, respectively. Conclusions To our knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate the performance of the BTNX multi-drug test panel against definitive testing in urine samples. While good concordance was observed for most drugs, high rates of discordant results for fentanyl and others emphasize the need for confirmatory testing by methods with higher sensitivity and specificity. Careful consideration prior to implementation would be essential, including physician education, interpretative comments, and training resources.
B-262 在应用于门诊快速成瘾医学诊所之前,验证用于尿液药物检测的护理点侧流免疫测定法
背景 护理点(POC)尿液药物检测是快速戒毒医疗机构自我报告的有效辅助手段,可立即指导患者管理。然而,现有的 POC 免疫测定存在一些局限性,包括与不相关化合物的交叉反应或灵敏度低,可能导致错误结果。在此,我们通过与黄金标准液相色谱串联质谱(LC-MS/MS)检测进行比较,评估了多种药物检测面板的性能。方法 使用竞争性侧流免疫分析法(LFA)对 102 份残留尿液标本进行了 10 种药物的检测:2-乙烯-1,5-二甲基-3,3-二苯基吡咯烷(EDDP,美沙酮代谢物)、丁丙诺啡、吗啡、氢吗啡酮、羟考酮、芬太尼、可卡因、甲基苯丙胺、苯丙胺和苯二氮卓(BTNX Rapid ResponseTM Multi-Drug Panel)。结果与 LC-MS/MS(n=67,66%)或溶液中微颗粒动力学相互作用自动免疫分析法(KIMS)(罗氏诊断公司,n=35,33%)得出的结果进行了比较。对于不一致的结果,特别是假阳性结果,要对广谱 LC-MS/MS 结果进行全面审查,以确定是否存在任何已知的交叉反应化合物。结果 在所评估的 10 种药物中,有 4 种药物与 LC-MS/MS 或 KIMS 免疫测定的一致性≥95%(乙二胺四乙酸二异丁酯、丁丙诺啡、羟考酮、甲基苯丙胺)。芬太尼的假阴性率最高,为 44%(LFA 临界值:10 纳克/毫升),其次是苯丙胺(22%,临界值:1000 纳克/毫升)。吗啡和氢吗啡酮的假阳性率分别为 14% 和 18%,大多数情况可能是由于阿片类药物或阿片类药物代谢物的交叉反应所致。苯二氮卓类药物(目标:奥沙西泮)的假阳性率和阴性率分别为 13% 和 24%。结论 据我们所知,这是第一项评估 BTNX 多药检测组合与尿样中确定性检测的性能的研究。虽然大多数药物的检测结果一致,但芬太尼和其他药物的检测结果不一致的比例较高,这说明有必要采用灵敏度和特异性更高的方法进行确证检测。在实施前必须进行仔细考虑,包括医生教育、解释性意见和培训资源。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Clinical chemistry
Clinical chemistry 医学-医学实验技术
CiteScore
11.30
自引率
4.30%
发文量
212
审稿时长
1.7 months
期刊介绍: Clinical Chemistry is a peer-reviewed scientific journal that is the premier publication for the science and practice of clinical laboratory medicine. It was established in 1955 and is associated with the Association for Diagnostics & Laboratory Medicine (ADLM). The journal focuses on laboratory diagnosis and management of patients, and has expanded to include other clinical laboratory disciplines such as genomics, hematology, microbiology, and toxicology. It also publishes articles relevant to clinical specialties including cardiology, endocrinology, gastroenterology, genetics, immunology, infectious diseases, maternal-fetal medicine, neurology, nutrition, oncology, and pediatrics. In addition to original research, editorials, and reviews, Clinical Chemistry features recurring sections such as clinical case studies, perspectives, podcasts, and Q&A articles. It has the highest impact factor among journals of clinical chemistry, laboratory medicine, pathology, analytical chemistry, transfusion medicine, and clinical microbiology. The journal is indexed in databases such as MEDLINE and Web of Science.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信