Newborn Drug Screening: Differential Outcome Using Meconium Versus Umbilical Cord Tissue

2020 ◽  
Vol 154 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S2-S3
Author(s):  
Norah Algahmdi ◽  
Cierra Sharp ◽  
Tonya Robinson ◽  
Saeed Jortani

Abstract Background Identification of newborns exposed to illicit drugs during pregnancy is important to assess families with substance abuse disorders requiring a close follow-up of the infant by both medical and social services. Drug screening and confirmation in newborns has been traditionally performed on meconium. In recent years, umbilical cord (UC) tissue has gained popularity as an alternative specimen. Here, we present two cases of paired meconium and UC drug testing leading to different outcomes. The objective of this report is to highlight the inconsistencies that may occur with paired testing, and how these results may be interpreted. Methods We report two cases of newborn drug screening of premature infants born to mothers with a history of drug abuse. The drug testing was performed on paired meconium, UC tissue and/or urine samples. UC tissue testing was referred to NMS laboratories (Horsham, PA) using HPLC-MS/MS followed by confirmation with the same method. Meconium samples were analyzed by LabCorp laboratories (Louisville, KY) using immunoassay followed by confirmation by HPLC-MS/MS. Urine drug screening was performed on both maternal and newborn samples at University of Louisville Hospital (ULH) using an immunoassay-based method. Confirmation of urine drug screening was confirmed with HPLC-MS/MS send-out to LabCorp. Each specimen was tested for amphetamine, methamphetamine, opiates, cocaine, cannabinoids and phencyclidine. Results Case I: An early term infant was born at 38 weeks and 3 days to a 35-year-old mother who has a history of drug abuse of amphetamines and opiates. Initially, the urine drug screens from both the mother and the baby were positive for amphetamine and/or methamphetamine. Meconium drug screening indicated the presence of amphetamine, methamphetamine, morphine, codeine, benzoylecgonine and m-OH-benzoylecgonine. In the UC, codeine was not detected, and fentanyl and norfentanyl gave positive results. Case II A preterm infant was born at approximately 36 weeks to a 33-year-old mother who had a history of drug abuse, stillbirth, and was diagnosed with hepatitis C. The mother had no prenatal care or ultrasounds for this pregnancy. Maternal urine drug screening was positive for amphetamine, methamphetamine and buprenorphine; the newborn’s urine sample was not available at that time. No confirmation was performed for UDS. LC-MS/MS toxicology testing on meconium revealed the presence of amphetamine, methamphetamine, buprenorphine and its metabolite norbuprenorphine. UC did not detect any buprenorphine or norbuprenorphine. Conclusion The two cases have revealed different sensitivities for drug detection in meconium and UC tissue. Meconium, to a significant extent, provides higher sensitivity, and is likely to remain the specimen of choice when sensitivity is of greatest importance. These results can help clinicians, laboratorians, and epidemiologists to (1) select the most appropriate test to confirm a suspected drug exposure and (2) interpret discordant results when testing is performed in multiple matrices.

1996 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 51-52

Illicit substance use among children and adolescents is a major health concern in our society. Increasingly, pediatricians are confronted by parents requesting that their children be tested for illicit drugs. Pediatricians and other practitioners, therefore, should be knowledgeable about drug testing techniques and understand how to interpret the results. Likewise, the legal and ethical issues surrounding drug testing should be evaluated thoroughly. The four urine drug screening tests used most commonly are: radioimmune assay (RIA), enzyme-multiplied immunoassay test (EMIT), fluorescent polarization immunoassay (FPIA), and latex agglutination test (ONTRAK). According to Schwartz, these newer, more sensitive immunoassay tests essentially have replaced the older, conventional thin-layer chromatography methodology, which required larger sample sizes and longer turn-around times.


2018 ◽  
Vol 129 (4) ◽  
pp. 821-828 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael G. Fitzsimons ◽  
Keith Baker ◽  
Rajeev Malhotra ◽  
Andrew Gottlieb ◽  
Edward Lowenstein ◽  
...  

Abstract Editor’s Perspective What We Already Know about This Topic What This Article Tells Us That Is New Background The incidence of substance use disorders in the United States among residents in anesthesiology is between 1% and 2%. A recent study reported that the incidence of substance use disorders in U.S. anesthesiology residents has been increasing. There are no reports of effective methods to prevent substance use disorder in residents. A comprehensive drug testing program including a random component may reduce the incidence of substance use disorders. Methods The authors initiated a comprehensive urine drug screening program of residents, fellows, faculty physicians, and certified nurse anesthetists. The authors performed 3,190 tests over 13 yr. The authors determined the incidence of substance use disorders among residents in our large anesthesiology residency program during the decade before (January 1, 1994, to December 31, 2003) and for the 13 yr after (January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2016) instituting a random urine drug testing program. A total of 628 residents trained in the program over these 23 yr; they contributed a total of 1,721 resident years for analysis. Fewer faculty and certified nurse anesthetists were studied, so we do not include them in our analysis. Results The incidence of substance use disorders among trainees in our department during the 10 yr before initiation of urine drug screening was four incidents in 719 resident years or 0.0056 incidents per resident-year. In the 13 yr after the introduction of urine drug screening, there have been zero incidents in 1,002 resident years in our residency program (P = 0.0305). Conclusions This single-center, comprehensive program including preplacement and random drug testing was associated with a reduction of the incidence of substance use disorders among our residents in anesthesiology. There were no instances of substance use disorders in our residents over the recent 13 yr. A large, multicenter trial of a more diverse sample of academic, government, and community institutions is needed to determine if such a program can predictably reduce the incidence of substance use disorders in a larger group of anesthesiology residents.


2001 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 18???22
Author(s):  
Albert Jekelis

2007 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-42 ◽  
Author(s):  
William B. Jaffee ◽  
Elisa Trucco ◽  
Sharon Levy ◽  
Roger D. Weiss

Author(s):  
Andrii Puzyrenko ◽  
Dan Wang ◽  
Randy Schneider ◽  
Greg Wallace ◽  
Sara Schreiber ◽  
...  

ABSTRACT This study investigated the presence of designer benzodiazepines in 35 urine specimens obtained from emergency department patients undergoing urine drug screening. All specimens showed apparent false-positive benzodiazepine screening results (i.e., confirmatory testing using a 19-component LC-MS/MS panel showed no prescribed benzodiazepines at detectable levels). The primary aims were to identify the possible presence of designer benzodiazepines, characterize the reactivity of commercially available screening immunoassays with designer benzodiazepines, and evaluate the risk of inappropriately ruling out designer benzodiazepine use when utilizing common urine drug screening and confirmatory tests. Specimens were obtained from emergency departments of a single US Health system. Following clinically ordered drug screening using Abbott ARCHITECT c assays and lab-developed LC-MS/MS confirmatory testing, additional characterization was performed for investigative purposes. Specifically, urine specimens were screened using two additional assays (Roche cobas c502, Siemens Dimension Vista) and LC-QTOF-MS to identify presumptively positive species, including benzodiazepines and non-benzodiazepines. Finally, targeted, qualitative LC-MS/MS was performed to confirm the presence of 12 designer benzodiazepines. Following benzodiazepine detection using the Abbott ARCHITECT, benzodiazepines were subsequently detected in 28/35 and 35/35 urine specimens, respectively, using Siemens and Roche assays. LC-QTOF-MS showed the presumptive presence of at least one non-FDA approved benzodiazepine in 30/35 specimens: flubromazolam (12/35), flualprazolam (11/35), flubromazepam (2/35), clonazolam (4/35), etizolam (9/35), metizolam (5/35), nitrazepam (1/35), and pyrazolam (1/35). Two or three designer benzodiazepines were detected concurrently in 13/35 specimens. Qualitative LC-MS/MS confirmed the presence of at least one designer benzodiazepine or metabolite in 23/35 specimens, with 3 specimens unavailable for confirmatory testing. Urine benzodiazepine screening assays from three manufacturers were cross-reactive with multiple non-US FDA-approved benzodiazepines. Clinical and forensic toxicology laboratories using traditionally designed LC-MS/MS panels may fail to confirm the presence of non-US FDA-approved benzodiazepines detected by screening assays, risking inappropriate interpretation of screening results as false-positives.


Author(s):  
Mae-Lan Winchester ◽  
Parmida Shahiri ◽  
Emily Boevers-Solverson ◽  
Abigail Hartmann ◽  
Meghan Ross ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document