Immunoassay in healthcare testing applications.

Immunoassay is used extensively for drug testing in pain management. Drug testing for the purpose of compliance monitoring is fundamentally different from forensic applications, which may rely on immunoassay screening to rapidly identify "negative" samples. In clinical settings, focus is shifted from identification of select drugs of abuse with low positivity rates to detection of a wide variety of licit and illicit compounds with expected high positivity rates. The primary drug classes of interest in this population, opioids and benzodiazepines, require special testing considerations when immunoassay is used. This review highlights the performance characteristics of immunoassay, with special emphasis on prescription drug classes and testing at the point-of-care.

Prevalence of heroin markers in urine for pain management patients.

Surveys of current trends indicate heroin abuse is associated with nonmedical use of pain relievers. Consequently, there is an interest in evaluating the presence of heroin-specific markers in chronic pain patients who are prescribed controlled substances. A total of 926,084 urine specimens from chronic pain patients were tested for heroin/diacetylmorphine (DAM), 6-acetylmorphine (6AM), 6-acetylcodeine (6AC), codeine (COD), and morphine (MOR). Heroin and markers were analyzed using liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS-MS). Opiates were analyzed following hydrolysis using LC-MS-MS. The prevalence of heroin use was 0.31%, as 2871 were positive for one or more heroin-specific markers including DAM, 6AM, or 6AC (a known contaminant of illicit heroin). Of these, 1884 were additionally tested for the following markers of illicit drug use: 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), 3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine (MDA), methamphetamine (MAMP), 11-nor-9-carboxy-Δ(9)-tetracannabinol (THCCOOH), and benzoylecgonine (BZE); 654 (34.7%) had positive findings for one or more of these analytes. The overall prevalence of heroin markers were as follows: DAM 1203 (41.9%), 6AM 2570 (89.5%), 6AC 1082 (37.7%). MOR was present in 2194 (76.4%) and absent (

Prevalence of synthetic cannabinoids in U.S. athletes: initial findings.

A number of synthetic cannabinoids such as JWH-018 and JWH-073 have been incorporated into "spice" products. Despite having labels warning against human consumption, the products are smoked for their cannabinoid-like effects and the extent of their use by athletes has not been adequately described. Urine samples collected from 5,956 athletes were analyzed by high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry for the presence of JWH-018, JWH-073, and their metabolites. Metabolites of JWH-018 and/or JWH-073 were detected in 4.5% of the samples. Metabolites of JWH-018 and JWH-073, only JWH-018, and only JWH-073 were detected in 50%, 49%, and approximately 1% of positive samples, respectively. In total, JWH-018 metabolites were detected in 99% (50% + 49%) and JWH-073 metabolites were detected in approximately 50% (49% + 1%) of the positive samples. Parent JWH-018, JWH-018-2-OH-indole, and JWH-018-4-OH-indole were not detected in any of the samples. All samples in which JWH-073 metabolites were detected contained JWH-073-N-butanoic acid. Parent JWH-073 and its N-(4-OH-butyl), 4-OH-indole, 5-OH-indole, and 7-OH-indole metabolites were not detected. Given the number of synthetic cannabinoids that have been synthesized, their limited regulation, and the prevalence of JWH-018 and JWH-073 metabolites detected in the athletes, these compounds should remain a priority for anti-doping programs.

Screening indicators of dehydroepiandosterone, androstenedione, and dihydrotestosterone use: a literature review.

Because of their perceived and reported effects on self-image, muscle development, performance, and similar factors, anabolic-androgenic steroids (AAS) and their precursors are among the most abused substances by professional, amateur, and recreational athletes. However, AAS abuse is not limited to athletes, but is also prevalent in the workplace, especially those professions in which image, strength, and endurance are coveted attributes. The detection of many steroids in biological specimens is analogous to the detection of an abused drug such as cocaine. Identification of the parent drug or its characteristic metabolite(s) in a donor's sample with a drug screening technique and confirmation of the drug/metabolite with a suitable alternative technology provides evidence of use. These analyses and subsequent interpretive scenarios become far more complex when the ingested AAS is an endogenous compound such as dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), androstenedione (Adione), or dihydrotestosterone (DHT). These compounds and their metabolites are present in specimens such as urine as a course of our natural endocrine function. Therefore, it becomes much more challenging for the laboratory to establish testing and interpretative paradigms that can distinguish "normal" urinary profiles of these steroids and their metabolites from profiles indicative of exogenous use. Distinguishing "normal" from "abnormal" urine profiles is particularly challenging during screening when literally tens of steroids and their metabolites may be tested simultaneously in a single chromatographic analysis. The purpose of this paper is to review the relevant literature about DHEA, Adione, and DHT administration, detection, and interpretation specifically as it relates to changes in the urinary AAS profile that may be identified during the routine laboratory screening of donor urine specimens.

Efficacy of different pharmacologic agents in reducing pain during propofol injection: a systematic review

Introduction: Propofol is a nonopioid intravenous anesthetic with a fast onset and short duration of action. It is commonly used as an induction agent, the sole agent in total intravenous anesthesia, or in short ambulatory procedures. One side effect of this drug is pain on injection. The pain on propofol injection can reach as much as 70%. Different pharmacologic interventions have been used to decrease propofol injection pain. The objective of this study is to determine the efficacy of different pharmacologic agents in reducing propofol injection pain. Materials and methods: A search for randomized controlled trials was done using electronic databases and manual searching. Letters were sent to anesthesiology departments nationwide for unpublished studies that may be included. Studies that met the inclusion criteria were appraised for methodological quality by two independent reviewers using the Physiotherapy Evidence database (PEDro) assessment tool. Meta-analysis was done using Review Manager (RevMan) Version 5.0 for Windows. Results: Sixteen studies were included in the review. Meta-analysis was done for lidocaine versus normal saline in decreasing propofol injection pain. Nineteen percent of patients complained of moderate pain and 7 percent complained of severe pain among those treated with lidocaine compared with 81% and 93%, respectively, among those given normal saline solution. the interventions not included in the meta-analysis were assessed based on the levels of evidence by Furlan. Conclusion: Lidocaine 40mg/IV given prior to propofol was efficacious in decreasing pain compared with normal saline solution. There is strong evidence for the use of remifentanil 0.01-0.02 mg or 2ug/kg as pretreatment in decreasing pain on propofol injection.

Urine drug testing of chronic pain patients: licit and illicit drug patterns.

Chronic pain patients are frequently maintained on one or more powerful opioid medications in combination with other psychoactive medications. Urine tests provide objective information regarding patient compliance status. Little information is available on testing this unique population. The goal of this study was to characterize drug disposition patterns in urine specimens collected from a large population of pain patients. Confirmation data for 10,922 positive specimens were collated into 11 drug Classes. The number of drug/metabolites tested (#) and number of confirmed positive specimens were as follows: amphetamines (7), 160; barbiturates (5), 308; benzodiazepines (6), 2397; cannabinoids (1), 967; carisoprodol (2), 611; cocaine (1), 310; fentanyl (1), 458; meperidine (2), 58; methadone (2), 1209; opiates (7), 8996; and propoxyphene (2), 385. Subdivision into 19 distinct drug Groups allowed characterization of drug use patterns. Of the 10,922 positive specimens, 15,859 results were reported as positive in various drug Classes, and 27,197 drug/metabolites were measured by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. The frequency of illicit drug use (cannabis, cocaine, ecstasy) was 10.8%. Being the first study of this type, these data present a large array of information on licit and illicit drug use, drug detection frequencies, drug/metabolite patterns, and multi-drug use combinations in pain patients.

Analysis of nitrite in adulterated urine samples by capillary electrophoresis.

A simple method for analyzing nitrite in urine has been developed to confirm and quantify the amount of nitrite in potentially adulterated urine samples. The method involved separation of nitrite by capillary electrophoresis and direct UV detection at 214 nm. Separation was performed using a bare fused silica capillary and a 25 mM phosphate run buffer at a pH of 7.5. Sample preparation consisted of diluting the urine samples 1:20 with run buffer and internal standard, and centrifuging for 5 min at 2500 rpm. The sample was hydrodynamically injected, then separated using -25 kV with the column maintained at 35 degrees C. The method had upper and lower limits of linearity of 1500 and 80 microg/mL nitrite, respectively, and a limit of detection of 20 microg/mL. The method was evaluated using the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards (NCCLS) protocol (Document EP10-A2), and validated using controls, standards, and authentic urine samples. Ten anions, ClO-, CrO4(-2), NO3-, HCO3-, I-, CH3COO-, F-, SO4-, S2O8(-2), and Cl-, were tested for potential interference with the assay. Interferences with quantitation were noted for only CrO4(-2) and S2O8(-2). High concentrations of Cl- interfered with the chromatography. The method had acceptable accuracy, precision, and specificity.

Determination of chromate adulteration of human urine by automated colorimetric and capillary ion electrophoretic analyses.

Various chemicals can be added to urine specimens collected for drug analysis to abnormally elevate ionic concentrations and/or interfere with either immunoassay urine drug-screening procedures or gas chromatographic-mass spectrometric confirmation techniques. One such adulterant, "Urine Luck" (formula 5.3), has been identified in our previous research to contain potassium dichromate. Screening of suspected adulterated specimens and confirmation of the adulterant are important for forensic drug screening. The application and comparison of automated colorimetric and capillary ion electrophoretic techniques for the detection, confirmation, and quantitation of chromate adulteration of urine specimens were the purpose of this investigation. Thirty-six urine specimens suspected of adulteration were analyzed for chromate by colorimetric analysis with diphenylcarbazide. Duplicate aliquots were analyzed for chromate by capillary ion electrophoresis. Results of the colorimetric chromate analyses revealed a mean chromate concentration of 929 microg/mL with a standard error of 177 microg/mL and a range of 30 to 5634 microg/mL. Results of the capillary ion electrophoresis chromate analyses revealed a mean chromate concentration of 1009 microg/mL with a standard error of 218 microg/mL and a range of 20 to 7501 microg/mL. The correlation coefficient between the capillary ion electrophoretic and colorimetric chromate results was r = 0.9669. Application of the automated diphenylcarbazide colorimetric technique provides rapid determination of chromate adulteration of a urine specimen. Capillary ion electrophoresis offers a separation technique to confirm the presence of chromate in suspected adulterated specimens. The excellent correlation between these methods substantiates their application to forensic testing as screening and/or confirmation techniques.