Comparison of different methods used in drugs of abuse for sample validity testing including pH methods, specific gravity methods, TECO™ Drug Adulteration Test Strip and oxidant assay
Author:
Mina Ashraf12ORCID, Stathopoulos John1, Sinanian Taveet1, McNeice Leah1, Holmes Deirdre1, Fletcher Kristi-Lee1, Bottero Emily1, Banukumar Shanmugam1, Vazquez Santiago1
Affiliation:
1. NSW Health Pathology, Forensic & Analytical Science Service (FASS), Toxicology Unit, Macquarie Hospital , Sydney , NSW , Australia 2. Faculty of Medicine and Health , Sydney University , Sydney , NSW , Australia
Abstract
Abstract
Objectives
In the absence of sample validity testing, a healthcare provider may fail to identify a patient’s adulteration of their urine sample. This study compared different methods for specific gravity (SG), pH, TECO™ Drug Adulteration Test Strip (dipstick) and oxidant assay to explain the differences and also make an informative decision on method selection.
Methods
Creatinine, SG and pH measurements are essential in sample validity testing. SG and pH automated chemical methods are compared against pH meter method, SG refractometer and dipstick method. Also, oxidant assay was compared against dipstick method.
Results
SG chemical method agreement with refractometer is 81.9% and with dipstick method is 64.7%. The refractometer method agreement with dipstick method is 66.1%. pH chemical method agreement with pH Meter method is 74.3% and with dipstick method is 81.4%. pH meter method agreement is 85.7% with dipstick method. Results were analysed using Deming regression analysis and F-test. SG chemical method correlated better with refractometer than the dipstick method. Oxidant assay correlated well with dipstick method in detecting adulterants such as pyridinium chlorochromate, nitrite and bleach.
Conclusions
Varying degrees of differences were seen in the SG and pH measurements. These differences were both method and instrument dependent. The automated chemical methods are recommended alongside oxidant assay for consistency, accuracy and faster turn-around time as part of sample validity testing for drugs of abuse.
Publisher
Walter de Gruyter GmbH
Reference22 articles.
1. Standridge, JB, Adams, SM, Zotos, AP. Urine drug screening: a valuable office procedure. Am Fam Physician 2010;81:635–40. 2. Jaffee, WB, Trucco, E, Teter, C, Levy, S, Weiss, RD. Focus on alcohol & drug abuse: ensuring validity in urine drug testing. Psychiatr Serv 2008;59:140–2. https://doi.org/10.1176/ps.2008.59.2.140. 3. McCance-Katz, EF. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA): new directions. Psychiatr Serv 2018;69:1046–8. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201800281. 4. Dias, VC, Moschopedis, T, Prosser, C, Yatscoff, RW. Evaluation of the CLINITEK ATLAS for routine macroscopic urinalysis. Clin Biochem 1996;29:217–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/0009-9120(96)84727-9. 5. Galimany, R, Arambarri, M, Biosca, C, Ceriotti, F, Chapelle, JP, Lopez, R, et al.. European multicentre evaluation of the Super Aution SA-4220 urinalysis analyser. Clin Chem Lab Med 1998;36:947–58. https://doi.org/10.1515/CCLM.1998.164.
|
|