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.

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.