Suppr超能文献

尸检时尿液药物筛查对预测实验室死后毒理学的效用评估。

Assessment of urine drug screen utility at autopsy to predict laboratory postmortem blood toxicology.

机构信息

Harris County Institute of Forensic Sciences, Houston, Texas, USA.

Institute of Emerging Health Professions, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

出版信息

J Forensic Sci. 2024 Sep;69(5):1815-1825. doi: 10.1111/1556-4029.15561. Epub 2024 Jun 19.

Abstract

When faced with increasing drug-related deaths and decline in practicing forensic pathologists, the need to quickly identify toxicology-related deaths is evident in order to appropriately triage cases and expedite turnaround times. Lateral flow immunoassays conducted pre-autopsy offer quick urine drug screen (UDS) results in minutes and are used to inform the need for autopsy. Over 1000 medicolegal cases were reviewed to compare UDS results to laboratory enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) blood results to evaluate how well autopsy UDS predicted laboratory findings. Mass spectral analysis was performed on ELISA-positive specimens and these data were used to investigate UDS false-negative (FN) results when possible. Five different UDS devices (STAT One Step Drug of Abuse dip card and cassette, Premiere Biotech multi-drug and fentanyl dip cards and ATTEST 6-acetylmorphine (6-AM) dip card) were tested encompassing 11 drug classes: 6-AM, amphetamine/methamphetamine, benzodiazepines, benzoylecgonine, fentanyl, methadone, opioids, phencyclidine, and delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol. Sensitivity, specificity, efficiency, and positive and negative predictive values >80% indicated that UDS was useful for predicting cases involving benzoylecgonine, methadone, methamphetamine, and phencyclidine. UDS was unreliable in predicting amphetamine, benzodiazepines, fentanyl, and opiates-related cases due to a high percentage of FN (up to 11.2%, 8.0%, 12.4%, and 5.5%, respectively) when compared to ELISA blood results. For the later analytes, sensitivities were as low as 57.5%, 60.0%, 72.2%, and 66.7%, respectively. Overall results support that UDS cannot replace laboratory testing. Because UDS is subject to false-positive and FN results users must understand the limitations of using UDS for triage or decision-making purposes.

摘要

当面对与日俱增的与毒品相关的死亡人数和从事法医病理学工作的病理学家人数减少的情况时,为了妥善分类病例并加快周转时间,快速确定毒理学相关死亡原因是显而易见的。在尸检前进行的侧向流动免疫分析在几分钟内提供快速的尿液药物筛查 (UDS) 结果,并用于告知是否需要进行尸检。对超过 1000 例法医案例进行了审查,以将 UDS 结果与实验室酶联免疫吸附测定 (ELISA) 血液结果进行比较,以评估尸检 UDS 对实验室发现的预测程度。对 ELISA 阳性标本进行了质谱分析,并利用这些数据调查 UDS 假阴性 (FN) 结果的可能性。测试了五种不同的 UDS 设备 (STAT One Step 药物滥用检测试条和药盒、Premiere Biotech 多药物和芬太尼检测试条和 ATTEST 6-乙酰吗啡 (6-AM) 检测试条),涵盖了 11 种药物类别:6-AM、苯丙胺/甲基苯丙胺、苯二氮卓类、苯甲酰古柯碱、芬太尼、美沙酮、阿片类、苯环利定和 δ-9-四氢大麻酚。灵敏度、特异性、效率以及>80%的阳性和阴性预测值表明,UDS 可用于预测涉及苯甲酰古柯碱、美沙酮、甲基苯丙胺和苯环利定的病例。UDS 在预测涉及苯丙胺、苯二氮卓类、芬太尼和阿片类药物的病例时不可靠,因为与 ELISA 血液结果相比,FN 的百分比很高(分别为 11.2%、8.0%、12.4%和 5.5%)。对于后来的分析物,灵敏度分别低至 57.5%、60.0%、72.2%和 66.7%。总体结果支持 UDS 不能替代实验室检测。由于 UDS 存在假阳性和 FN 结果,因此用户必须了解使用 UDS 进行分类或决策目的的局限性。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验