Literature DB >> 20495592

An evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry versus immunoassay drug testing in pain patients.

Amadeo Pesce1, Murray Rosenthal, Robert West, Cameron West, Bridgit Crews, Charles Mikel, Perla Almazan, Sergey Latyshev.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Immunoassay screening is used by pain physicians to determine compliance with controlled substances. Because clinical use of pain medications is different from illicit drug use, there is a need to evaluate the level of diagnostic accuracy of this procedure for the pain patient.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the results of automated screening by immunoassay with analysis by Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) in identifying pain patients using illicit drugs and pain patients excreting low concentrations of their prescribed medications. STUDY
DESIGN: A diagnostic accuracy study.
METHODS: Urine samples from 4,200 pain patients were tested by immunoassay and LC-MS/MS for the following drugs and metabolites: Amphetamine, Methamphetamine, Alpha-hydroxyalprazolam, Lorazepam, Nordiazepam, Oxazepam, Temazepam, Cannabinoids, Cocaine, Methadone, Methadone Metabolite, Codeine, Hydrocodone, Hydromorphone, Morphine, Propoxyphene, and Norpropoxyphene.
RESULTS: In a number of patients negative immunoassay findings were superseded by positive results on analysis by Mass Spectrometry. These were termed false negative results. The greatest failures were for the benzodiazepines (28%) and for cocaine (50%). LIMITATIONS: The study was limited by the lack of complete demographics for the cohort and because only one immunoassay diagnostic product was used. It was also limited because not all drugs react the same in the immunoassay.
CONCLUSIONS: We show that in general, immunoassay screening results are accurate, although as shown in this study there are many false negative observations. The use of LC-MS/MS technology significantly decreases the number of false negative results.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20495592

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pain Physician        ISSN: 1533-3159            Impact factor:   4.965


  6 in total

1.  Detection and quantification of tricyclic antidepressants and other psychoactive drugs in urine by HPLC/MS/MS for pain management compliance testing.

Authors:  Justin L Poklis; Carl E Wolf; Ashley Goldstein; M Lauren Wolfe; Alphonse Poklis
Journal:  J Clin Lab Anal       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 2.352

2.  Provider Misinterpretation, Documentation, and Follow-Up of Definitive Urine Drug Testing Results.

Authors:  Isaac Chua; Athena K Petrides; Gordon D Schiff; Jaime R Ransohoff; Michalis Kantartjis; Jocelyn Streid; Christiana A Demetriou; Stacy E F Melanson
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2019-11-11       Impact factor: 5.128

3.  Rational Urine Drug Monitoring in Patients Receiving Opioids for Chronic Pain: Consensus Recommendations.

Authors:  Charles E Argoff; Daniel P Alford; Jeffrey Fudin; Jeremy A Adler; Matthew J Bair; Richard C Dart; Roy Gandolfi; Bill H McCarberg; Steven P Stanos; Jeffrey A Gudin; Rosemary C Polomano; Lynn R Webster
Journal:  Pain Med       Date:  2018-01-01       Impact factor: 3.750

4.  Epigenome-wide association study of serum cotinine in current smokers reveals novel genetically driven loci.

Authors:  Richa Gupta; Jenny van Dongen; Yu Fu; Abdel Abdellaoui; Rachel F Tyndale; Vidya Velagapudi; Dorret I Boomsma; Tellervo Korhonen; Jaakko Kaprio; Anu Loukola; Miina Ollikainen
Journal:  Clin Epigenetics       Date:  2019-01-05       Impact factor: 6.551

5.  Study protocol of the ESUB-MG cluster randomized trial: a pragmatic trial assessing the implementation of urine drug screening in general practice for buprenorphine maintained patients.

Authors: 
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2016-03-01       Impact factor: 2.497

6.  Counselors' Clinical Use of Definitive Drug Testing Results in Their Work with Substance-Use Clients: a Qualitative Study.

Authors:  Adam Rzetelny; Barbara Zeller; Nicholas Miller; Kathy Egan City; Kenneth L Kirsh; Steven D Passik
Journal:  Int J Ment Health Addict       Date:  2015-07-21       Impact factor: 3.836

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.