Journal Article

A Multiple-Site Laboratory Evaluation of Three On-Site Urinalysis Drug-Testing Devices

Dennis J. Crouch, James F. Frank, Laurel J. Farrell, Heike M. Karsch and James E. Klaunig

in Journal of Analytical Toxicology

Volume 22, issue 6, pages 493-502
Published in print October 1998 | ISSN: 0146-4760
Published online October 1998 | e-ISSN: 1945-2403 | DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jat/22.6.493
A Multiple-Site Laboratory Evaluation of Three On-Site Urinalysis Drug-Testing Devices

More Like This

Show all results sharing these subjects:

  • Medical Toxicology
  • Toxicology (Non-medical)

GO

Show Summary Details

Preview

Presented are findings from a multisite laboratory evaluation comparing on-site urinalysis drug-test results to results from Syva EMIT® immunoassay and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS). Three laboratories participated in the NHTSA-funded project. Specimens were tested for amphetamines, benzodiazepines, cocaine, cannabinoids, and opiates. Each laboratory selected 20 urines that tested positive for a single drug/drug class and 20 that tested negative to challenge the on-site drug-testing devices. Qualitative and quantitative GC-MS confirmations were performed to ensure that all positive samples contained the target drug(s)/metabolite(s) and that all negative samples did not contain the target analytes. EZ-SCREEN, ONTRAK, and TRIAGE on-site test kits were selected for evaluation. On-site false-positive results, in which GC-MS-verified negative urine samples gave positive on-site results, were rare. Two such errors were recorded with both EZ-SCREEN and TRIAGE. Cross-reactivity from samples containing GC-MS-verified high concentrations of alternate drugs was also rare. One cross-reactive error was recorded while testing for cocaine with EZ-SCREEN, a second while testing for benzodiazepines with ONTRAK, and a third while testing for cocaine with ONTRAK. The EZ-SCREEN kit did not appear to adhere to a cutoff concentration as demonstrated by the number of samples that contained low concentrations of the target drugs that tested positive with this device. A significant finding of this study was that comparing on-site test device results with those of EMIT for samples with drug concentrations near the reporting cutoff was very complex. It required a thorough knowledge of the performance of each device, EMIT, and GC-MS. It also required an investigation of each discrepant result—a consideration not taken in many previous evaluations of on-site testing devices. Compared with current federal guidelines for workplace urinalysis testing, more donor samples would screen positive for cannabinoids and cocaine by the on-site devices than by EMIT immunoassay. However, fewer would be reported as positive because most contained GC-MS-determined drug concentrations lower than the federal confirmation and reporting limits.

Journal Article.  0 words. 

Subjects: Medical Toxicology ; Toxicology (Non-medical)

Full text: subscription required

How to subscribe Recommend to my Librarian

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content. Please, subscribe or login to access all content.