Quantitative, False Positive, and False Negative Issues for Lateral Flow Immunoassays as Exemplified by Onsite Drug Screens

Lateral flow immunoassay devices offer many advantages including convenience, economical, simplicity, and rapid result. Many lateral flow immunoassays are non-instrumental and rely on visual detection of colored lines for results, enabling easy portability and allowing testing at any time and at any place by non-technical personnel. Hence, many lateral flow immunoassay tests have been developed for use ‘‘onsite’’, ‘‘point-of-care’’, or ‘‘point-of-test’’. However, utilization of this type of device requires the acceptance of some trade-offs. The most important is that the test results are generally qualitative. Moreover, since it is antibody-based, possibility exists that chemicals with similar structures will cause positive result leading to specificity and sensitivity issues. Recognizing such limitations, this technology has been widely utilized for screening tests in which a yes and no answer is sufficient. The initial screen test result can then be confirmed by a quantitative method, which is usually equipment-based and required the service of highly trained technician. Acceptance of this two-step procedure allows the massive testing of subjects economically and quickly without worrying about the test locations and the service of highly trained technician. An example of one such application is at home pregnancy testing in which a positive result would inevitably lead to a doctor’s visit for further testing. Another example is workplace drug testing in which positive result from a drug screen is confirmed by a laboratory GC/MS or LC/MS result. With the increasing popularity of lateral flow immunoassay devices, many users have ignored the inherent qualitative nature and specificity/ sensitivity issues of the assays and placed increasing demands on the manufacturers for fool-proof onsite tests. The present chapter examines this issue as exemplified by the false results encountered in abused drug screens. We shall first examine the definitions of positive and negative results in a

[1]  B. Tomkins,et al.  Quantitation of cotinine in nonsmoker saliva using chip-based nanoelectrospray tandem mass spectrometry. , 2006, Journal of analytical toxicology.

[2]  T. Kwong Clinical False-Positive Drug Test Results , 2008 .

[3]  Frank T Peters,et al.  Amphetamine concentrations in human urine following single-dose administration of the calcium antagonist prenylamine-studies using fluorescence polarization immunoassay (FPIA) and GC-MS. , 2003, Journal of analytical toxicology.

[4]  J. Haidar,et al.  Rifampin interference with opiate immunoassays. , 2002, Clinical chemistry.

[5]  M. Peace,et al.  Performance evaluation of three on-site adulterant detection devices for urine specimens. , 2002, Journal of analytical toxicology.

[6]  M. Elsohly Practical challenges to positive drug tests for marijuana. , 2003, Clinical chemistry.

[7]  R. Wong,et al.  Adulteration Detection by Intect® 7 , 2005 .

[8]  M. Thevis,et al.  Urinary concentrations of morphine and codeine after consumption of poppy seeds. , 2003, Journal of analytical toxicology.

[9]  A. Wu,et al.  False-positive phencyclidine immunoassay results caused by venlafaxine and O-desmethylvenlafaxine. , 2002, Clinical chemistry.

[10]  E. Cone,et al.  Identification and quantitation of alkaloids in coca tea. , 1996, Forensic science international.

[11]  R. Hendrickson,et al.  Quetiapine Cross-Reactivity Among Three Tricyclic Antidepressant Immunoassays , 2003, Journal of toxicology. Clinical toxicology.

[12]  S. Manzi,et al.  Methylphenidate produces a false-positive urine amphetamine screen. , 2002, Pediatric emergency care.

[13]  L. Brace,et al.  Coca tea consumption causes positive urine cocaine assay , 2006, European journal of emergency medicine : official journal of the European Society for Emergency Medicine.

[14]  James G Flood,et al.  Interpreting tricyclic antidepressant measurements in urine in an emergency department setting: comparison of two qualitative point-of-care urine tricyclic antidepressant drug immunoassays with quantitative serum chromatographic analysis. , 2007, Journal of analytical toxicology.

[15]  P. López-García,et al.  False positive phencyclidine results caused by venlafaxine. , 2007, The American journal of psychiatry.

[16]  A. Poklis,et al.  Performance evaluation of four on-site drug-testing devices for detection of drugs of abuse in urine. , 2000, Journal of analytical toxicology.

[17]  A. Dasgupta Handbook of drug monitoring methods; therapeutics and drugs of abuse. , 2008 .

[18]  C. Moore,et al.  The determination of morphine in urine and oral fluid following ingestion of poppy seeds. , 2003, Journal of analytical toxicology.

[19]  A. Leino,et al.  Comparison of eight commercial on-site screening devices for drugs-of-abuse testing. , 2001, Scandinavian journal of clinical and laboratory investigation.

[20]  D. Andrenyak,et al.  A comparative evaluation of the instant-view 5-panel test card with OnTrak TesTcup Pro 5: comparison with gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. , 2006, Journal of analytical toxicology.

[21]  I. Grant,et al.  Characterization of interference with 6 commercial delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol immunoassays by efavirenz (glucuronide) in urine. , 2006, Clinical chemistry.

[22]  R. Wong,et al.  Drugs of abuse : body fluid testing , 2005 .

[23]  A. Hofer,et al.  Quetiapine cross reactivity with urine methadone immunoassays. , 2007, The American journal of psychiatry.

[24]  J. Zacher,et al.  False-Positive Urine Opiate Screening Associated with Fluoroquinolone Use , 2004, The Annals of pharmacotherapy.

[25]  K. Klette,et al.  Occupational exposure to methamphetamine in workers preparing training AIDS for drug detection dogs. , 2006, Journal of analytical toxicology.