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。

IF 1.8 Q3 MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY
Erving T Laryea, James H Nichols
{"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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:一种新型快速药物检测设备(RDTD)可用于分析尿液中的芬太尼。随着芬太尼滥用现象在美国的增多,我们对 RDTD 检测条的分析性能进行了评估,并与质谱法和两种尿芬太尼免疫测定法进行了比较:方法:将从精神病医院和其他诊所的住院病人和门诊病人处采集的剩余尿液样本进行冷冻处理:总共 142 份尿液样本中包括 70 份阳性样本和 72 份阴性样本。与其他检测方法相比,RDTD 检测条的灵敏度(84.3%)和有效率(85.9%)较低,特异性为 87.5%。ARK 芬太尼 II 检测法的灵敏度(95.7%)与 Immunalysis SEFRIA 芬太尼检测法相同,但特异性(94.4% 对 81.9%)和总体效率(95.1% 对 88.7%)更高:结论:不同检测方法的假阴性和假阳性数量存在差异。RDTD在检测患者尿液中的芬太尼方面表现出了可接受的性能,并能在医疗机构的床旁检测点提供更快的检测结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine
Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
5.00%
发文量
137
×
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