Fenofibric Acid Can Cause False-Positive Urine Methylenedioxymethamphetamine Immunoassay Results.

We present a false-positive result of ecstasy (3,4-methylenedioxy-NN-methylamphetamine) screening due to the therapeutic use of fenofibrate, an antihyperlipidemic drug. Our hypothesis was that the main metabolite of fenofibrate, fenofibric acid, was responsible for this cross-reactivity on a DRI(®) Ecstasy Assay, using a cut-off of 500 ng/mL. We estimated that the addition of 225 µg/mL pure fenofibric acid to blank urine would be sufficient to result in a positive DRI(®) Ecstasy Assay. The results obtained on the urine samples analyses of the patient show that the DRI(®) Ecstasy Assay resulted negative 2 days after discontinuing fenofibrate treatment, when the urine fenofibric acid concentration corrected by creatinine and determinated by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry was 20.3 µg/mg creatinine. The cross-reactivity data for fenofibric acid would seem to indicate that there was insufficient concentration of measured compound to account for the positive immunochemical results for ecstasy. This apparent discrepancy can be explained in several ways, one of them is that the ß-glucuronidase-resistent fenofibric acid isomers are responsible. This process could explain the low recovery of free fenofibric acid when we use the developed method for its quantification in urine samples. Positive results on immunoassay screening must be considered presumptive until confirmation with another method based on a different principle, preferably gas chromatography-mass spectrometry or liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry.

Effectiveness of intensive group and individual interventions for smoking cessation in primary health care settings: a randomized trial.

OBJECTIVES: Primary: To compare the effectiveness of intensive group and individual interventions for smoking cessation in a primary health care setting; secondary: to identify the variables associated with smoking cessation. METHODS: Three-pronged clinical trial with randomisation at the individual level. We performed the following: an intensive individual intervention (III), an intensive group intervention (IGI) and a minimal intervention (MI). Included in the study were smokers who were prepared to quit smoking. Excluded from the study were individuals aged less than 18 years or with severe mental conditions or terminal illnesses. The outcome measure was continued abstinence at 12 months confirmed through CO-oximetry (CO). The analysis was based on intention to treat. RESULTS: In total, 287 smokers were recruited: 81 in the III, 111 in the IGI, and 95 in the MI. Continued abstinence at 12 months confirmed through CO was 7.4% in the III, 5.4% in the IGI, and 1% in the MI. No significant differences were noted between III and MI on the one hand, and between IGI and MI on the other [RR 7.04 (0.9-7.2) and RR 5.1 (0.6-41.9), respectively]. No differences were noted between IGI and III [RR 0.7 (0.2-2.2)]. In multivariate analysis, only overall visit length showed a statistically significant association with smoking cessation. CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of intensive smoking interventions in this study was lower than expected. No statistically significant differences were found between the results of individual and group interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN32323770.