Moody David E, Fang Wenfang B, Andrenyak David M, Monti Kim M, Jones Chuck
Center for Human Toxicology, Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Utah, 417 Wakara Way, Suite 2111, Salt Lake City, UT 84108, USA.
J Anal Toxicol. 2006 Jan-Feb;30(1):50-6. doi: 10.1093/jat/30.1.50.
This study compared the ability of two on-site testing devices, Instant-View Test Card and OnTrak TesTcup Pro 5, to discriminate negative from positive urine samples for cannabinoids, cocaine metabolite, opiates, amphetamines, and benzodiazepines. The on-site devices were evaluated in a precision study with fortified urine samples and in a clinical study with samples submitted for forensic urine drug testing. For precision, seven stocks were prepared per device. Each stock had all five analytes added in a random fashion at 0, 25, 50, 75, 125, 150, or 175% of cutoff. Ten aliquots per stock were assigned random numbers and analyzed by two individuals. The respective accuracies (defined as "% below cutoff samples that were negative + % above cutoff samples that were positive") for Instant-View Test Card and TesTcup were 74.3 and 87.1 for amphetamines; 82.1 and 90.7 for benzoylecgonine; 88.6 and 90.7 for benzodiazepines; 83.6 and 94.3 for morphine; 82.1 and 87.9 for cannabinoids; and 82.1 and 90.1% overall. In contrast to the on-site testing devices, instrumental testing with OnLine reagents had perfect precision. For the clinical study, submitted samples that had reached their disposal date were rescreened for the five drug groups. Fifty that had absorbance changes near the negative control for all five drug groups were selected as "negatives"; 240 samples with positive or multi-positive results (some between the 75% control and cutoff) and confirmed by GC-MS were chosen as "positives" (at least 45 per drug group). The non-positive drug groups in these samples added 150 additional presumptively negatives per drug group. Samples were assigned random numbers, and two individuals tested each sample. The respective accuracies in respect to GC-MS results for Instant-View Test Card and TesTcup were 95.8 and 91.7 for amphetamines; 100 and 100 for benzoylecgonine; 96.7 and 96.5 for benzodiazepines; 98.8 and 99.2 for opiates; 94.4 and 95.0 for cannabinoids; and 97.1 and 96.5% overall. The clinical study revealed that the Instant-View Test Card had low cross-reactivity (i.e., false negatives) for samples with amphetamine only and oxycodone. TesTcup had low cross-reactivity for samples with amphetamine only and hydrocodone and/or hydromorphone; it also had more cross-reactivity towards (i.e., false positives) sympathomimetic amines. In summary, the Instant-View Test Card was less precise than the TesTcup at or near the cutoff; with clinical samples, however, the percent accuracies of the two devices were similar.
本研究比较了两种现场检测设备,即时观察测试卡(Instant-View Test Card)和OnTrak TesTcup Pro 5,对尿液样本中大麻素、可卡因代谢物、阿片类药物、苯丙胺和苯二氮卓类药物进行阴性和阳性判别的能力。在一项使用加标尿液样本的精密度研究以及一项使用提交用于法医尿液药物检测的样本的临床研究中,对现场检测设备进行了评估。为评估精密度,每种设备准备了七种储备液。每种储备液均以随机方式添加了所有五种分析物,添加浓度分别为临界值的0%、25%、50%、75%、125%、150%或175%。每种储备液的十个等分试样被随机编号,并由两人进行分析。即时观察测试卡和TesTcup针对苯丙胺的各自准确度(定义为“低于临界值且为阴性的样本百分比 + 高于临界值且为阳性的样本百分比”)分别为74.3%和87.1%;针对苯甲酰爱康宁为82.1%和90.7%;针对苯二氮卓类药物为88.6%和90.7%;针对吗啡为83.6%和94.3%;针对大麻素为82.1%和87.9%;总体准确度分别为82.1%和90.1%。与现场检测设备不同,使用在线试剂进行的仪器检测具有完美的精密度。对于临床研究,对已到处置日期的提交样本重新筛查这五个药物组。选择了50个在所有五个药物组的阴性对照附近有吸光度变化的样本作为“阴性样本”;选择了240个经气相色谱 - 质谱联用仪(GC-MS)确认的阳性或多阳性结果(有些在75%对照和临界值之间)的样本作为“阳性样本”(每个药物组至少45个)。这些样本中未呈阳性的药物组,每个药物组额外增加了150个推定阴性样本。样本被随机编号,两人对每个样本进行检测。即时观察测试卡和TesTcup相对于GC-MS结果针对苯丙胺的各自准确度分别为95.8%和91.7%;针对苯甲酰爱康宁为100%和100%;针对苯二氮卓类药物为96.7%和96.5%;针对阿片类药物为98.8%和99.2%;针对大麻素为94.4%和95.0%;总体准确度分别为97.1%和96.5%。临床研究表明,即时观察测试卡对仅含有苯丙胺和羟考酮的样本具有较低的交叉反应性(即假阴性)。TesTcup对仅含有苯丙胺和氢可酮及/或氢吗啡酮的样本具有较低的交叉反应性;它对拟交感神经胺类也有更多的交叉反应性(即假阳性)。总之,在临界值或接近临界值时,即时观察测试卡的精密度低于TesTcup;然而,对于临床样本,两种设备的准确度百分比相似。