AIM: Products for on-site urine drug testing offer the possibility to perform screening for drugs of abuse directly at the point-of-care. This is a well-established routine in emergency and dependency clinics but further evaluation of performance is needed due to inherent limitations with the available products. METHODS: Urine drug testing by an on-site product was compared with routine laboratory methods. First, on-site testing was performed at the laboratory in addition to the routine method. Second, the on-site testing was performed at a dependency clinic and urine samples were subsequently sent to the laboratory for additional analytical investigation. RESULTS: The on-site testing products did not perform with assigned cut-off levels. The subjective reading between the presence of a spot (i.e. negative test result) being present or no spot (positive result) was difficult in 3.2% of the cases, and occurred for all parameters. The tests performed more accurately in drug negative samples (specificity 96%) but less accurately for detecting positives (sensitivity 79%). Of all incorrect results by the on-site test the proportion of false negatives was 42%. The overall agreement between on-site and laboratory testing was 95% in the laboratory study and 98% in the clinical study. CONCLUSION: Although a high degree of agreement was observed between on-site and routine laboratory urine drug testing, the performance of on-site testing was not acceptable due to significant number of false negative results. The limited sensitivity of on-site testing compared to laboratory testing reduces the applicability of these tests.
AIM: Products for on-site urine drug testing offer the possibility to perform screening for drugs of abuse directly at the point-of-care. This is a well-established routine in emergency and dependency clinics but further evaluation of performance is needed due to inherent limitations with the available products. METHODS: Urine drug testing by an on-site product was compared with routine laboratory methods. First, on-site testing was performed at the laboratory in addition to the routine method. Second, the on-site testing was performed at a dependency clinic and urine samples were subsequently sent to the laboratory for additional analytical investigation. RESULTS: The on-site testing products did not perform with assigned cut-off levels. The subjective reading between the presence of a spot (i.e. negative test result) being present or no spot (positive result) was difficult in 3.2% of the cases, and occurred for all parameters. The tests performed more accurately in drug negative samples (specificity 96%) but less accurately for detecting positives (sensitivity 79%). Of all incorrect results by the on-site test the proportion of false negatives was 42%. The overall agreement between on-site and laboratory testing was 95% in the laboratory study and 98% in the clinical study. CONCLUSION: Although a high degree of agreement was observed between on-site and routine laboratory urine drug testing, the performance of on-site testing was not acceptable due to significant number of false negative results. The limited sensitivity of on-site testing compared to laboratory testing reduces the applicability of these tests.
Keywords:
Point-of-care testing; drugs of abuse; on-site drug testing; urine toxicology