Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter September 21, 2011

Diagnostic efficiency of different amphetamine screening tests – the search for an optimal cutoff

  • Reto Savoca , Katharina M. Rentsch and Andreas R. Huber

Abstract

Increased use of designer drugs (amphetamines and amphetamine-like substances) raises the need for fast screening tests in urine in clinical settings, workplace and drug rehabilitation. Immunological assays currently used are subject to unwanted crossreactivities, partly depending on the cutoff concentrations used. The values recommended in Europe and the USA are 500 and 1000 ng/ml, respectively. In Switzerland, the recommended concentration of 300 ng/ml results in a high rate of false-positive urine samples and expensive, time-consuming confirmation testing. Using the Abbott Axsym analyzer, we found numerous false positives from patients in rehabilitation centers due to concomitant medication. Therefore, the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of the Abbott test at different cutoff concentrations and the sensitivity of the Roche Cobas Integra, Beckman Synchron and Biosite Triage point-of-care test were examined. HPLC Bio-Rad Remedi was chosen as the method of higher hierarchical order. The specificity of the Axsym analyzer (300 ng/ml) was 86%. At 500 ng/ml or 1000 ng/ml the specificity was increased to 99 or 100%, respectively, while the sensitivity only decreased from 97 to 91 or 81%, respectively. In summary, the cutoff concentration for amphetamine screening tests should not be below 500 ng/ml to avoid a high rate of false-positive results.


Corresponding author: Reto Savoca, PhD, Center of Laboratory Medicine, Kantonsspital Aarau, 5001 Aarau, Switzerland. Phone: +41-62-838-54-63, Fax: +41-62-838-53-99, E-mail:

References

1 Draft #4: Mandatory guidelines for federal workplace drug testing programs. http://workplace.samhsa.gov/ResourceCenter/DT/FA/GuidelinesDraft4.htm. Accessed January 2004.Search in Google Scholar

2 Substance abuse and mental health administration. Mandatory guidelines for federal workplace drug testing programs. Fed Regist 1994; 59:29908–31.Search in Google Scholar

3 Guidelines of the European Workplace Drug Testing Society (EWDTS). http://www.ewdts.org. Accessed February 2004.Search in Google Scholar

4 Drugs of abuse testing guidelines. http://www.ichv.ch/AGSA/default.htm. Accessed January 2004.Search in Google Scholar

5 de la Torre R, Badia R, Gonzalez G, Garcia M, Pretel MJ, Farre M, et al. Cross-reactivity of stimulants found in sports drug testing by two fluorescence polarization immunoassays. J Anal Toxicol 1996; 20:165–70.10.1093/jat/20.3.165Search in Google Scholar PubMed

6 Dietzen DJ, Ecos K, Friedman D, Beason S. Positive predictive values of abused drug immunoassays on the Beckman Synchron in a veteran population. J Anal Toxicol 2001; 25:174–8.10.1093/jat/25.3.174Search in Google Scholar PubMed

7 Baker DP, Murphy MS, Shepp PF, Royo VR, Caldarone ME, Escoto B, et al. Evaluation of the Abuscreen ONLINE assay for amphetamines on the Hitachi 737: comparison with EMIT and GC/MS methods. J Forensic Sci 1995; 40:108–12.10.1520/JFS13771JSearch in Google Scholar

8 Oyler JM, Cone EJ, Joseph RE Jr, Moolchan ET, Huestis MA. Duration of detectable methamphetamine and amphetamine excretion in urine after controlled oral administration of methamphetamine to humans. Clin Chem 2002; 48:1703–14.10.1093/clinchem/48.10.1703Search in Google Scholar

9 Wilson JF, Smith BL. Evaluation of detection techniques and laboratory proficiency in testing for drugs of abuse in urine: an external quality assessment scheme using clinically realistic urine samples. Ann Clin Biochem 1999; 36:592–600.10.1177/000456329903600505Search in Google Scholar PubMed

10 Smith-Kielland A, Olsen KM, Christophersen AS. False-positive results with Emit II amphetamine/methamphetamine assay in users of common psychotropic drugs. Clin Chem 1995; 41:951–2.10.1093/clinchem/41.6.951Search in Google Scholar

11 Felscher D, Schulz K. Screening of amphetamine/methamphetamine and their derivatives in urine using FPIA and Triage 8 and the scope and limits of a subsequent identification by means of the REMEDi HS system. J Forensic Sci 2000; 45:1327–31.10.1520/JFS14890JSearch in Google Scholar

12 Demedts P, Wauters A, Franck F, Neels H. Evaluation of the REMEDI drug profiling system. Eur J Clin Chem Clin Biochem 1994; 32:409–17.Search in Google Scholar

13 Schutz H, Erdmann F, Magiera ES, Weiler G. Analytical confirmation of error in false positive amphetamine immunoassays and results. Arch Kriminol 1998; 201:93–6.Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2004-3-8
Accepted: 2004-6-28
Published Online: 2011-9-21
Published in Print: 2004-9-1

© Walter de Gruyter

Downloaded on 5.3.2024 from https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/CCLM.2004.213/html
Scroll to top button