{"title":"尿芬太尼快速药物检测设备与质谱法和两种尿芬太尼化验方法的比较评估。","authors":"Erving T Laryea, James H Nichols","doi":"10.1093/jalm/jfae059","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A new Rapid Drug Test Device (RDTD) is available for analysis of urine fentanyl. With the rise in fentanyl abuse in the United States, we evaluated the analytical performance of the RDTD test strip compared to mass spectrometry and 2 urine fentanyl immunoassays.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Leftover, deidentified urine samples collected from inpatients and outpatients from our psychiatric hospital and other clinics were frozen at <-70°C, thawed at room temperature, and centrifuged. Aliquots were tested with the RDTD (CLIA Waived, Inc.) test strips and 2 urine fentanyl immunoassays: the ARK Fentanyl II assay (ARK Diagnostics Inc.) and the Immunalysis SEFRIA Fentanyl assay (Immunalysis Corporation). Both assays were conducted on the Abbott Alinity c chemistry analyzer (Abbott Laboratories). Mass spectrometry analysis was performed at ARUP Laboratories. All assays had a 1 ng/mL positive cutoff.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 142 urine samples included 70 positive and 72 negative samples. The RDTD strips had lower sensitivity (84.3%) and efficiency (85.9%) and showed a specificity of 87.5% compared to the other assays. The ARK Fentanyl II assay showed identical sensitivity (95.7%) to the Immunalysis SEFRIA Fentanyl assay but had higher specificity (94.4% vs 81.9%) and overall efficiency (95.1% vs 88.7%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Differences were noted in the number of false negatives and positives among the assays. The RDTD demonstrated acceptable performance in detecting urine fentanyl in our patient population and would provide faster test results at point-of-care testing sites in our healthcare enterprise.</p>","PeriodicalId":46361,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of a Rapid Drug Test Device for Urine Fentanyl Compared to Mass Spectrometry and 2 Urine Fentanyl Assays.\",\"authors\":\"Erving T Laryea, James H Nichols\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jalm/jfae059\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A new Rapid Drug Test Device (RDTD) is available for analysis of urine fentanyl. With the rise in fentanyl abuse in the United States, we evaluated the analytical performance of the RDTD test strip compared to mass spectrometry and 2 urine fentanyl immunoassays.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Leftover, deidentified urine samples collected from inpatients and outpatients from our psychiatric hospital and other clinics were frozen at <-70°C, thawed at room temperature, and centrifuged. Aliquots were tested with the RDTD (CLIA Waived, Inc.) test strips and 2 urine fentanyl immunoassays: the ARK Fentanyl II assay (ARK Diagnostics Inc.) and the Immunalysis SEFRIA Fentanyl assay (Immunalysis Corporation). Both assays were conducted on the Abbott Alinity c chemistry analyzer (Abbott Laboratories). Mass spectrometry analysis was performed at ARUP Laboratories. All assays had a 1 ng/mL positive cutoff.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 142 urine samples included 70 positive and 72 negative samples. The RDTD strips had lower sensitivity (84.3%) and efficiency (85.9%) and showed a specificity of 87.5% compared to the other assays. The ARK Fentanyl II assay showed identical sensitivity (95.7%) to the Immunalysis SEFRIA Fentanyl assay but had higher specificity (94.4% vs 81.9%) and overall efficiency (95.1% vs 88.7%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Differences were noted in the number of false negatives and positives among the assays. The RDTD demonstrated acceptable performance in detecting urine fentanyl in our patient population and would provide faster test results at point-of-care testing sites in our healthcare enterprise.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46361,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jalm/jfae059\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jalm/jfae059","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Evaluation of a Rapid Drug Test Device for Urine Fentanyl Compared to Mass Spectrometry and 2 Urine Fentanyl Assays.
Background: A new Rapid Drug Test Device (RDTD) is available for analysis of urine fentanyl. With the rise in fentanyl abuse in the United States, we evaluated the analytical performance of the RDTD test strip compared to mass spectrometry and 2 urine fentanyl immunoassays.
Methods: Leftover, deidentified urine samples collected from inpatients and outpatients from our psychiatric hospital and other clinics were frozen at <-70°C, thawed at room temperature, and centrifuged. Aliquots were tested with the RDTD (CLIA Waived, Inc.) test strips and 2 urine fentanyl immunoassays: the ARK Fentanyl II assay (ARK Diagnostics Inc.) and the Immunalysis SEFRIA Fentanyl assay (Immunalysis Corporation). Both assays were conducted on the Abbott Alinity c chemistry analyzer (Abbott Laboratories). Mass spectrometry analysis was performed at ARUP Laboratories. All assays had a 1 ng/mL positive cutoff.
Results: A total of 142 urine samples included 70 positive and 72 negative samples. The RDTD strips had lower sensitivity (84.3%) and efficiency (85.9%) and showed a specificity of 87.5% compared to the other assays. The ARK Fentanyl II assay showed identical sensitivity (95.7%) to the Immunalysis SEFRIA Fentanyl assay but had higher specificity (94.4% vs 81.9%) and overall efficiency (95.1% vs 88.7%).
Conclusions: Differences were noted in the number of false negatives and positives among the assays. The RDTD demonstrated acceptable performance in detecting urine fentanyl in our patient population and would provide faster test results at point-of-care testing sites in our healthcare enterprise.