A simple and high throughput parallel dual immunoaffinity liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry system for urine drug testing

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (8) ◽  
pp. 832-835 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tsong-Yung Chou ◽  
Chien-Kuo Wang ◽  
A. C. Lua ◽  
Hsueh-Hui Yang
Keyword(s):  
Mass Spectrometry ◽  
Liquid Chromatography ◽  
High Throughput ◽  
Human Urine ◽  
Drug Testing ◽  
Liquid Chromatography Mass Spectrometry ◽  
Urine Drug Testing ◽  
Urine Drug ◽  
Mass Spectrometry System ◽  
Immunoaffinity Columns

A simple and rapid method for direct quantitation of drugs in human urine samples was developed using a system composed of an automatic column switch and two home-made capillary immunoaffinity columns (CIACs, 100 μm × 15 cm).

A primer on definitive gas and liquid chromatography drug testing: What clinicians need to know

2015 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Amadeo Pesce, PhD ◽  
Kenneth L. Kirsh, PhD ◽  
Angela Huskey, PharmD, CPE ◽  
Steven D. Passik, PhD ◽  
Catherine A. Hammett-Stabler, PhD
Keyword(s):  
Mass Spectrometry ◽  
Liquid Chromatography ◽  
Drug Testing ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Clinical Tool ◽  
Gas And Liquid Chromatography ◽  
Urine Drug Testing ◽  
Urine Drug ◽  
Compare And Contrast

Objective: To describe the differences between mass spectrometry technologies and compare and contrast them with immunoassay techniques of urine drug testing (UDT). Highlight the potential importance of the differences among these technologies for clinicians so as to allow them make decisions in their use in patient care.Methods: Review of mass spectrometry techniques, including gas chromatography, liquid chromatography, and time-of-flight techniques.Results: The potential clinical implications of these technologies stemming from their scope and accuracy are presented.Significance: UDT is an important clinical tool, though there are differences in technology and testing processes with important implications for clinical decision making. It is crucial, therefore, that clinicians have an understanding of the technologies behind the tests they order, so that their interpretation and use of results are based on an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the technologies used.

scholarly journals Comparative Evaluation of the Accuracy of Benzodiazepine Testing in Chronic Pain Patients Utilizing Immunoassay with Liquid Chromatography Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC/ MS/MS) of Urine Drug Testing

2011 ◽  
Vol 3;14 (3;5) ◽  
pp. 259-270
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Mass Spectrometry ◽  
Liquid Chromatography ◽  
Tandem Mass Spectrometry ◽  
Drug Testing ◽  
Tandem Mass ◽  
Index Test ◽  
Chromatography Tandem Mass Spectrometry ◽  
Urine Drug Testing ◽  
Urine Drug ◽  
Liquid Chromatography Tandem Mass

Background: Eradicating or appreciably limiting controlled prescription drug abuse, such as opioids and benzodiazepines, continues to be a challenge for clinicians, while providing needed, proper treatment. Detection of misuse and abuse is facilitated with urine drug testing (UDT). However, there are those who dispute UDT’s diagnostic accuracy when done in the office (immunoassay) and claim that laboratory confirmation using liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) is required in each and every examination. Study Design: A diagnostic accuracy study of UDT. Study Setting: The study was conducted in a tertiary referral center and interventional pain management practice in the United States. Objective: Comparing UDT results of in-office immunoassay testing (the index test) with LC/MS/ MS (the reference test). Methods: A total of 1,000 consecutive patients were recruited to be participants. Along with demographic information, a urine sample was obtained from them. A nurse conducted the immunoassay testing at the interventional pain management practice location; a laboratory conducted the LC/MS/ MS. All index test results were compared with the reference test results. The index test’s efficiency (agreement) was calculated as were calculations for sensitivity, specificity, false-positive, and false-negative rates. Results: Approximately 36% of the specimens required confirmation. The index test’s efficiency for prescribed benzodiazepines was 78.4%. Reference testing improved accuracy to 83.2%, a 19.6% increase, and 8.9% of participants were found to be taking non-prescribed benzodiazepines. The index test’s false-positive rate for benzodiazepines use was 10.5% in patients receiving benzodiazepines. Limitations: This study was limited by its single-site location, its use of a single type of point of care (POC) kit, and reference testing being conducted by a single laboratory, as well as technical sponsorship. Conclusion: Clinicians should feel comfortable conducting in-office UDT immunoassay testing. The present study shows that it is reliable, expedient, and fiscally sound for all involved. In-office immunoassay testing compares favorably with laboratory testing for benzodiazepines, offering both high specificity and agreement. However, clinicians should be vigilant and wary when interpreting results, weighing all factors involved in their decision. Key words: Controlled substances, benzodiazepines, opioids, illicit drugs, abuse, liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry, immunoassay, urine drug testing

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document