Comparison of Oral Fluid and Urine for Detection of Cocaine Abuse Using Liquid Chromatography with Tandem Mass Spectrometry.

BACKGROUND: Requests for urine (UR) and oral fluid (OF) drug testing at our institutions are increasing. However, few studies have assessed the accuracy of each matrix using paired specimens and LC-MS/MS. We compared OF and UR for detection of cocaine (COC) abuse in addiction medicine-psychiatry (AMP) clinics. METHODS: We measured COC and benzoylecgonine (BZE) in OF (limit of detection (LOD) 2.0 µg/L) and BZE in UR (LOD 5 µg/L) by LC-MS/MS in 258 paired samples, and compared the two matrices when higher UR cutoffs of 25, 50, and 150 µg/L were employed. RESULTS: UR detected more COC abuse than OF at the LOD (5 µg/L). BZE was detected in 63 UR specimens and COC and/or BZE in 40 OF specimens (29 OF+UR+, 11 OF+UR-, 34 OF-UR+). UR creatinine was lower in OF+UR- specimens. COC and BZE were detected in 88% (35/40) and 75% (30/40) of OF specimens, respectively. OF was equivalent to UR at detecting COC abuse using a 25 µg/L cutoff, and detected more COC abuse than UR using 50 and 150 µg/L cutoffs. The ratio of OF COC/BZE increased with decreasing UR BZE concentrations. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate that OF detects more COC abuse in an AMP setting when UR BZE cutoffs ≥ 50 µg/L are utilized, and that UR creatinine concentrations are significantly lower in specimens positive for COC and/or BZE in OF and negative for BZE in UR. The presence of only COC in OF and low concentrations of UR BZE likely indicates remote use of COC.

The New Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Oral Fluid Cutoffs for Cocaine and Heroin-Related Analytes Applied to an Addiction Medicine Setting: Important, Unanticipated Findings with LC-MS/MS.

BACKGROUND: We implemented oral fluid (OF) as an alternative specimen type to urine for detection of cocaine (COC) and opiate abuse in outpatient addiction medicine clinics. METHODS: We implemented a 2-µg/L limit of quantification OF LC-MS/MS assay and compiled and reviewed all findings from a 22-month collection period for COC, benzoylecgonine (BZE), codeine (COD), 6-acetylmorphine (MAM), and morphine (MOR). We also compared the results of our clinical samples at different OF cutoffs and analytes specified in the new 2015 SAMHSA OF guidelines. RESULTS: Of 3608 OF samples, COC and BZE were positive in 593 and 508, respectively. COC or BZE was positive in 662 samples. Importantly and unexpectedly, 154 samples were COC positive and BZE negative, with 125 having COC 2.0-7.9 µg/L. A simulation with the new guideline cutoffs confirmed 65% (430 of 662) of all COC- or BZE-positive data set samples. Similarly, the new guidelines confirmed 44% (263 of 603) of data set samples positive for MOR or COD. Simulation found that the new, lower MAM guideline cutoffs detected 89% of the 382 MAM-positive samples in the data set, 104 of which the new guidelines had identified as negative for MOR and COD. CONCLUSIONS: COC (not BZE) is the dominant low-concentration OF analyte in an addiction medicine setting. This information will aid OF test interpretation. It also illustrates the importance of the 2015 guideline's new immunoassay cross-reactivity requirements and the likely improvement in detection of heroin use stemming from the new, lower MAM cutoffs.

The trazodone metabolite meta-chlorophenylpiperazine can cause false-positive urine amphetamine immunoassay results.

Amphetamines and methamphetamines are part of an important class of drugs included in most urine drugs of abuse screening panels, and a common assay to detect these drugs is the Amphetamines II immunoassay (Roche Diagnostics). To demonstrate that meta-chlorophenylpiperazine (m-CPP), a trazodone metabolite, cross-reacts in the Amphetamines II assay, we tested reference standards of m-CPP at various concentrations (200 to 20,000 g/L). We also tested real patient urine samples containing m-CPP (detected and quantified by HPLC) with no detectable amphetamine, methamphetamine, or MDMA (demonstrated by GC MS). In both the m-CPP standards and the patient urine samples, we found a strong association between m-CPP concentration and Amphetamines II immunoreactivity (r = 0.990 for the urine samples). Further, we found that patients taking trazodone can produce urine with sufficient m-CPP to result in false-positive Amphetamines II results. At our institution, false-positive amphetamine results occur not infrequently in patients taking trazodone with at least 8 trazodone-associated false-positive results during a single 26-day period. Laboratories should remain cognizant of this interference when interpreting results of this assay.

Urinary buprenorphine concentrations in patients treated with suboxone as determined by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry and CEDIA immunoassay.

We report on the utility of urine total buprenorphine, total norbuprenorphine, and creatinine concentrations in patients treated with Suboxone (a formulation containing buprenorphine and naloxone), used increasingly for the maintenance or detoxification of patients dependent on opiates such as heroin or oxycodone. Patients received 8-24 mg/day buprenorphine. Two-hundred sixteen urine samples from 70 patients were analyzed for both total buprenorphine and total norbuprenorphine by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS-MS). Buprenorphine concentrations in all 176 samples judged to be unadulterated averaged 164 ng/mL, with a standard deviation (SD) of 198 ng/mL. Nine samples (4.2%) had metabolite-parent drug ratios < 0.02, and 33 (15.3%) had no detectable buprenorphine. The metabolite/parent drug ratio in 166 samples had a range of 0.07-23.0 (mean = 4.52; SD = 3.97). Fifteen of 96 available urine samples (16.7%) had creatinine less than 20 mg/dL. We also found sample adulteration in 7 (7.3%) available samples. Using a 5 ng/mL urine buprenorphine cutoff, the sensitivity and specificity of the Microgenics homogeneous enzyme immunoassay versus LC-MS-MS were 100% and 87.5%, respectively. The 5 ng/mL cutoff Microgenics CEDIA buprenorphine assay results agreed analytically with LC-MS-MS in 97.9% of samples.

Effect of tramadol use on three point-of-care and one instrument-based immunoassays for urine buprenorphine.

We report that use of the popular analgesic tramadol can cause false-positive urine buprenorphine results. We examined the extent of tramadol cross-reactivity in three point-of-care urine buprenorphine immunoassays (ACON, QuikStrip, and ABMC) and an instrument-based one (Cedia). We tested 29 urine samples from patients known to be taking tramadol. Ten different samples tested positive for urine buprenorphine by at least one immunoassay. Samples with positive buprenorphine screens by immunoassay were tested for total buprenorphine and total norbuprenorphine content by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS-MS), which confirmed that seven of the 10 positive samples were false-positives. The remaining three positive immunoassay samples had insufficient quantity for LC-MS-MS testing. No false-positives were detected with the ACON (10 ng/mL calibration cutoff) or the Cedia assay (using a 20 ng/mL calibration cutoff). All four false-positive Cedia results (using a 5 ng/mL cutoff) in this study tested negative using the ACON device. Our data suggest that tramadol use can cause false-positive urine buprenorphine immunoassays, and this effect appears to be assay-dependent. Tramadol interference with the Cedia assay is clinically relevant, especially if the 5 ng/mL calibration cutoff is used.

Interpreting tricyclic antidepressant measurements in urine in an emergency department setting: comparison of two qualitative point-of-care urine tricyclic antidepressant drug immunoassays with quantitative serum chromatographic analysis.

Patients taking tricyclic antidepressants (TCA) can experience toxicity or severe side effects. As a rapid and less technically demanding alternative to quantitative serum analysis, most laboratories offer qualitative immunoassays to assist in the evaluation of a suspected TCA overdose. However, the relationship between quantitative serum and qualitative urine levels of TCA-related compounds and their metabolites has not been comprehensively studied. Serum high-performance liquid chromatography results were compared to the qualitative urine results using the Syva Rapid Test and the Biosite Triage. Serum concentrations of amitriptyline, desipramine, doxepin, imipramine, and nortriptyline ranging from subtherapeutic to toxic triggered a positive response on both urine immunoassay devices. On the other hand, neither immunoassay uniformly detected clomipramine, even at serum levels greater than the therapeutic range. False positives due to cyclobenzaprine were more common with the Biosite assay. For virtually all positive urine TCA findings, it was not possible to determine whether the positive results corresponded to subtherapeutic, therapeutic, supratherapeutic, or toxic serum concentrations. Because urine immunoassays are the only option for many laboratories analyzing specimens for TCAs (especially in an emergency setting), clinicians must understand the limitations and interpret results in conjunction with clinical findings and/or quantitation of serum levels.

Reduced interference by phenothiazines in amphetamine drug of abuse immunoassays.

CONTEXT: Emergency department physicians frequently request urine drug screens, but many are unaware of their limitations, including the potential for false-positive results. Promethazine, a phenothiazine derivative, is used for the treatment of allergies, agitation, nausea, and vomiting. Many patients taking promethazine are subject to urine drug screens and any potential interferences are important to recognize. DESIGN: During an 11-month period, all patients presenting to the Massachusetts General Hospital emergency department who had a finding of promethazine in their serum drug screen, and who also had a urine drug screen performed, were selected for inclusion in the study. The urine drug screen results (n = 22 patients/samples) were then studied. OBJECTIVE: To determine if promethazine use can cause false-positive urine amphetamine results in widely used drug of abuse immunoassays. RESULTS: Thirty-six percent of patients taking promethazine had false-positive test results for urine amphetamines using the EMIT II Plus Monoclonal Amphetamine/Methamphetamine Immunoassay. Sixty-four percent of patients showed cross-reactivity greater than 20% higher than the blank calibrator rate. In a separate, related study, no promethazine-induced false-positive results were seen with the EMIT II Plus, Triage, and TesTcard 9 amphetamine assays, or the Triage methamphetamine assay. Reduced chlorpromazine interference was also seen with these other assays. CONCLUSIONS: False-positive urine amphetamine results can be obtained in patients taking promethazine. Promethazine metabolite(s), and not the parent compound, are the likely cause of these urine false-positive results obtained with EMIT II Plus Monoclonal Amphetamine/Methamphetamine Immunoassay. Immunoassays from different manufacturers can have very different "interference" profiles, which the pathologist and laboratory scientist must understand and relay to clinicians.