False-Positive Amphetamines in Urine Drug Screens: A 6-Year Review

Author:

Pope Jeffrey D12ORCID,Drummer Olaf H23ORCID,Schneider Hans G14

Affiliation:

1. Clinical Biochemistry Unit, Alfred Health , 55 Commercial Rd, Melbourne, VIC 3004, Australia

2. Department of Forensic Medicine, Monash University , 65 Kavanagh St., Southbank, VIC 3006, Australia

3. Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine , 65 Kavanagh St., Southbank, VIC 3006, Australia

4. School of Public Health and Preventative Medicine, Monash University , 99 Commercial Rd, Melbourne, VIC 3004, Australia

Abstract

Abstract Immunoassays are routinely used to provide rapid urine drug screening results in the clinical setting. These screening tests are prone to false-positive results and ideally require confirmation by mass spectrometry. In this study, we have examined a large number of urine specimens where drugs other than amphetamines may have caused a false-positive amphetamine immunoassay screening result. Urine drug screens (12,250) in a clinical laboratory that used the CEDIA amphetamine/ecstasy method were reviewed for false-positive results over a 6-year period (2015–2020). An additional 3,486 referred samples, for which confirmatory--mass spectrometry was requested, were also reviewed. About 86 in-house samples and 175 referral samples that were CEDIA false-positive screens were further analyzed by an LC–QTOF general unknown screen. Potential cross-reacting drugs were identified, and their molecular similarities to the CEDIA targets were determined. Commercial standards were also analyzed for cross-reactivity in the amphetamine/ecstasy CEDIA screen. Positive amphetamine results in 3.9% of in-house samples and 9.9% of referred tests for confirmatory analysis were false positive for amphetamines. Of these false-positive specimens, on average, 6.8 drugs were detected by the LC–QTOF screen. Several drugs were identified as possible cross-reacting drugs to the CEDIA amphetamine/ecstasy assay. Maximum common substructure scores for 70 potential cross-reacting compounds were calculated. This was not helpful in identifying cross-reacting drugs. False-positive amphetamine screens make up to 3.9–9.9% of positive amphetamine screens in the clinical laboratory. Knowledge of cross-reacting drugs may be helpful when mass spectrometry testing is unavailable.

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Subject

Chemical Health and Safety,Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis,Toxicology,Environmental Chemistry,Analytical Chemistry

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3